Christian Forums

Now we are saying inferences, and scientists use the best available information to string together an the best possible explanation given the evidence.

Totally fine with that. 

I thought there were those here earlier that used words like "FACT" to describe the best possible explanation given the evidence.  That I do have a problem with.

TC, the Science Guy (at least as much of one as Bill Nye).

I agree with TC.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sun Nov 24, 2019 - 21:55:49
Now we are saying inferences, and scientists use the best available information to string together an the best possible explanation given the evidence.

Totally fine with that. 

I thought there were those here earlier that used words like "FACT" to describe the best possible explanation given the evidence.

Didn't see that.   When we say that evolution is a fact, it's because a change in allele frequency in populations over time, is an observed phenomenon.   The best possible explanation, given the evidence, is evolutionary theory.    One is a fact, and one is an explanation that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

Bill Nye is an engineer, which means that his education was a little light on the epistemology and process of science, and heavy on applications.   Back in the day, biologists were expected to have sufficient understanding of how we know things to get the difference between facts like evolution and the theories that explain them.

I haven't seen or read much of his work, but I suspect that he has learned epistemology, at least enough to get the difference.

   

Quote from: The Barbarian on Mon Nov 25, 2019 - 08:43:45
Didn't see that.   When we say that evolution is a fact, it's because a change in allele frequency in populations over time, is an observed phenomenon.   The best possible explanation, given the evidence, is evolutionary theory.    One is a fact, and one is an explanation that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

Bill Nye is an engineer, which means that his education was a little light on the epistemology and process of science, and heavy on applications.   Back in the day, biologists were expected to have sufficient understanding of how we know things to get the difference between facts like evolution and the theories that explain them.

I haven't seen or read much of his work, but I suspect that he has learned epistemology, at least enough to get the difference.

   

I don't think you know your butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to what engineers learn about science.  Since evolution is a very loaded word, it is very easy to know that unless you are being precise about how you use that term, it is not a fact.

And some of these theories might make a lot of sense to you because you don't get enough application of mathematics to know that some of these theories are a stretch.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Sep 06, 2019 - 08:27:42
Of course not. God does not lie.

I don't think you can fairly accuse God of lying for not giving Moses the details of genetics.

QuoteNor does He need to create fairy tales to express truth.

Not as long as there are YE creationists to do it.

QuoteEvolution, Not.

Directly observed.   Remember what evolution is.

QuoteGenetics, we are far from precisely understanding

Watson and Crick did that.   Precisely showed the mechanism of heredity.   As we discussed earlier, genetics cleared up a serious problem for Darwin's theory.   Would you like me to show you that, again.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Mon Nov 25, 2019 - 14:45:26
I don't think you know your butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to what engineers learn about science.

The state of Texas thought otherwise when they certified me as a Safety Engineer, as did the CSP board when they certified me.   I tutored a lot of young engineering students in physics, and the salient difference in the courses for engineers was that they didn't have to derive the equations for most problems.

QuoteSince evolution is a very loaded word

It's very precisely defined in science.   It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   Or somewhat less precisely "descent with modification", which was Darwin's term.

Quoteit is very easy to know that unless you are being precise about how you use that term, it is not a fact.

As science defines it, it's an observed fact.  A lot of people confuse evolution with agencies of evolution, like natural selection, or consequences of evolution, like common descent.

QuoteAnd some of these theories might make a lot of sense to you because you don't get enough application of mathematics to know that some of these theories are a stretch.

In science, a "theory" is an idea or set of ideas that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.    Non-scientists tend to confuse "theory" with "hypothesis."   I think your sentence would make more sense if you used "hypothesis."

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/
[/quote]

You've apparently had some exposure to population genetics, which is the mathematical treatment of evolutionary processes.  Which of the standard methods do you think is faulty, and what is your evidence for your conclusion?

never mind.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Nov 30, 2019 - 10:17:00
never mind.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Tue Nov 26, 2019 - 12:46:52
The state of Texas thought otherwise when they certified me as a Safety Engineer, as did the CSP board when they certified me.   I tutored a lot of young engineering students in physics, and the salient difference in the courses for engineers was that they didn't have to derive the equations for most problems.

It's very precisely defined in science.   It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   Or somewhat less precisely "descent with modification", which was Darwin's term.

As science defines it, it's an observed fact.  A lot of people confuse evolution with agencies of evolution, like natural selection, or consequences of evolution, like common descent.

In science, a "theory" is an idea or set of ideas that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.    Non-scientists tend to confuse "theory" with "hypothesis."   I think your sentence would make more sense if you used "hypothesis."

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/


You've apparently had some exposure to population genetics, which is the mathematical treatment of evolutionary processes.  Which of the standard methods do you think is faulty, and what is your evidence for your conclusion?

A safety engineer?  You can call yourself whatever you want.  However, that is not what the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors would call an engineer.  Nor does your limited experience with tutoring others in Physics long ago quantify the amount of derivations of equations that happens in ABET accredited degrees.

You can also re-arrange how you word things in order to win an argument, but I see through it.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Tue Dec 03, 2019 - 08:42:28And some of these theories might make a lot of sense to you because you don't get enough application of mathematics to know that some of these theories are a stretch.

Barbarian suggests:
You've apparently had some exposure to population genetics, which is the mathematical treatment of evolutionary processes.  Which of the standard methods do you think is faulty, and what is your evidence for your conclusion?

QuoteYou can also re-arrange how you word things in order to win an argument, but I see through it.

Well, let's see how you do with the math here.   Tell us about it.

Continued from reply #138. The quoted authors work will be in black, my comments in blue, and all other references or quotes posted and or linked as such.

Furthermore, there was division of labor between cells. As the groups reached a certain size, some cells underwent programmed cell death, providing places for daughter clumps to break from. Since individual cells acting as autonomous organisms would value their own survival, this intentional culling suggests that the cells acted instead in the interest of the group as a whole organism.

Simply amazing. Labor division and programming, awesome. Who did this dividing and programming? Why the cells themselves of course, according the value system they created among themselves where they learned in their schools to become autonomous, not for just themselves but for the collective as it were. This is the la la land mentality of supposedly scientifically and intellectually superior thinking men and women. One fairy tale after another in order to avoid the obvious, a creator and or designer.  Apparently evolution was just working out the common good as the Pope of Rome and the lefty progressives of today are. So also the fairy tales of global warming and or climate change to help bring about and or facilitate the same common good among us now superiorly evolved progenitors of these our simple celled forerunners.

Given how easily multicellular creatures can arise in test tubes, it might then come as no surprise that multicellularity has arisen at least a dozen times in the history of life, independently in bacteria, plants and of course, animals, beginning the evolutionary tree that we sit atop today. Our evolutionary history is littered with leaps of complexity. While such intricacies might seem impossible, study after study has shown that even the most complex structures can arise through the meandering path of evolution. In Evolution's Witness, Ivan Schwab explains how one of the most complex organs in our body, our eyes, evolved. Often touted by Intelligent Designers as 'irreducibly complex', eyes are highly intricate machines that require a number of parts working together to function. But not even the labyrinthine structures in the eye present an insurmountable barrier to evolution.

The bottom line of all evolutionary nonsense is the same, not real scientific or verifiable evidence, but rather because they say so. The world was one big lab or test tube because they say so. It needed no lab technicians to create sustain and monitor the necessary conditions to producing life other than random chance because they say so. Never mind no one yet has any idea at all just how that actually happened. The same process was able to repeat itself over and over trillions of times unto our present existence according to the supervision of their lab technician, random chance, because the say so. Huge leaps of complexity in the evolutionary processes took place unto unimaginable complexity, because they say so.   This includes of course leaps which spontaneously created as it were highly complex organs such as the eye, dependent upon the interaction of multiple independent and interactive parts unto immediate functional and beneficial performance. You know, like we say taking place all the time today according to random chance. Not!

Such fairy tale speculative claims are what pass for real science today. This is all according to the babbling of the self loving and confident scoffers the scriptures themselves predicted would arise before the end. 

Quote from: Alan on Sun Nov 24, 2019 - 21:42:51

What the...   That's pretty much incoherent babbling and a stretch I might add, even for you.

I know. The stories Shakespeare wrote and or acted out are much more likely to have or to happen than the fairy tale stories of evolution ever really happening. The latter is a stretch of unfathomable proportions. Nevertheless, very many choose to believe such.

Maybe Amo could answer my question.   Population genetics is the mathematical treatment of evolution.    Could you show where the math is incorrect?

Quote from: The Barbarian on Fri Dec 06, 2019 - 17:51:40
Maybe Amo could answer my question.   Population genetics is the mathematical treatment of evolution.    Could you show where the math is incorrect?

No doubt the math is correct. It would be the assumptions or faulty premise attached to math, that would be incorrect. Change does not equal evolution, nor does or would observed evolution equal random chance directed evolution being the mechanism of our existence.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 07, 2019 - 09:50:25
No doubt the math is correct. It would be the assumptions or faulty premise attached to math, that would be incorrect.

Feel free to explain those.   Show us the faulty mathematical assumptions of whatever equations of population genetics you think are wrong.

QuoteChange does not equal evolution

Actually, that's precisely what the word means in English.    It dates back to the 1600s being a Latin derivative from evolutionem.    The concept is one of change over time.   In biology, evolution is a "change in allele frequency in a population over time."   Darwin preferred "descent with modification."

Quotenor does or would observed evolution equal random chance directed evolution being the mechanism of our existence.

Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.    Perhaps if you knew what evolution is, you'd be more effective fighting it.

I suspect that population genetics might be a bit too mathematical for most people here.   Let's start simply.

One effective measure for selection in a population is the Hardy-Weinberg equation.   Given the gene frequencies of an existing population, it predicts the frequencies of different genotypes in the next generation.   It has a number of assumptions that must approximately hold for the equation to be accurate.

No great amount of immigration into or emigration out of the population.
Random mating with regard to the genes in question.
No great increase in mutation
Large population size
No selective difference between alleles

A nice introduction is here:
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/heredity-and-genetics/a/hardy-weinberg-mechanisms-of-evolution

The equation is:   p²+2pq+q²=1   
Where:
p is the frequency of allele A
q is the frequency of allele B

If the equation is not equal to one, and all the other assumptions hold, then that indicates that natural selection is acting on one or both of the alleles.

This is a very useful, if elementary tool in population genetics.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 07, 2019 - 12:47:42
Feel free to explain those.   Show us the faulty mathematical assumptions of whatever equations of population genetics you think are wrong.

Actually, that's precisely what the word means in English.    It dates back to the 1600s being a Latin derivative from evolutionem.    The concept is one of change over time.   In biology, evolution is a "change in allele frequency in a population over time."   Darwin preferred "descent with modification."

Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.    Perhaps if you knew what evolution is, you'd be more effective fighting it.

Says the proponent of the ever evolving theory of evolution. I didn't say mathematical equations were wrong, in fact I said the opposite, that they were probably correct. So why did you ask me to point out that which I never claimed? The fact that genetic change can be mathematically calculated does not prove evolution as the mechanism of our existence. Creationists and evolutionists allow for and agree that change does take place. They differ upon it being the mechanism of our existence, and to what degree change has taken place throughout history, or can take place. As already stated, the math is probably correct since the calculations are observable and can be checked and verified. It is the assumptions and conclusions of evolutionists concerning such that cannot be. That is all.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 07, 2019 - 18:34:51
Says the proponent of the ever evolving theory of evolution.

Like the ever-evolving theory of gravitation.   Science always refines theories as it goes.   Probably seems like cheating to YE creationists who are locked into their new doctrines, regardless of the facts.   The key is that the four points Darwin showed, remain valid today as they did over a hundred years ago.

QuoteI didn't say mathematical equations were wrong, in fact I said the opposite, that they were probably correct. So why did you ask me to point out that which I never claimed? The fact that genetic change can be mathematically calculated does not prove evolution as the mechanism of our existence.

Some scientist said it was the "mechanism of our existence?"   I don't think so.  As you learned, it's just a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

QuoteCreationists and evolutionists allow for and agree that change does take place.

Most creationist organization now admit that new species, genera, and families evolve.  (some go even further)  But they don't want to call it evolution.

QuoteThey differ upon it being the mechanism of our existence, and to what degree change has taken place throughout history, or can take place.

If YE creationists just retreat a little farther, we won't have anything to argue about.

QuoteAs already stated, the math is probably correct since the calculations are observable and can be checked and verified. It is the assumptions and conclusions of evolutionists concerning such that cannot be.

Check out the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium equation.  What do you see wrong, there?   If you can figure that out, we'll go on to something a little more technical.



 

QuoteLike the ever-evolving theory of gravitation.   Science always refines theories as it goes.   Probably seems like cheating to YE creationists who are locked into their new doctrines, regardless of the facts.   The key is that the four points Darwin showed, remain valid today as they did over a hundred years ago.

Yes, but some theories are observable and transpiring right in front of our faces, others exist only in certain minds. Deep time evolution being in the category of the latter. I don't know why you maintain the lie that YE creationism is a new doctrine, which I have already proved wrong in another thread. The facts you refer to, do not exist. Would you like me to quote the sources again and then some. Why will you maintain an argument and or accusation which has been proved wrong. Darwins points remain valid to those of the Darwinian faith of course. They have never been valid to those of the creationist faith of course. 

QuoteSome scientist said it was the "mechanism of our existence?"   I don't think so.  As you learned, it's just a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

Though I have tried to tell you many times over, I suppose I need to once again. I am not part of your fantasy fairy tale world, where once you tell someone something, they have learned the truth. This world exists in your mind alone, certainly not mine or countless others. We simply learn what you think when you express such, not the truth. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, not you. He is the WORD OF GOD, and the word of God is truth. You may speak to people as though you are God, but you are not and never will be. You even admit that your precious scientific theories are always subject to change, and corrections must be made as increased information reveals errors. Yet you still speak to all as though they have just learned the unalterable truth when you spout on about the latest version of your theories. You have the right of course to do as you wish, nevertheless, a whole lot of people do not have  as much confidence in your precious theories as yourself. Many of us maintain that God's word is superior to your puny science and theories.

There is change in allele frequencies within populations over time, that is all. Those of the evolutionary faith declare this a proof of their pet theory, creationists and others don't see it that way. They see way to many problems with the theory to accept it as scientific fact, while seeing large amounts of evidence the world over supporting the biblical account of creation and the flood. Our faiths part ways at this juncture.

2Co 3:18  But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

By beholding the glory of the Lord we become changed. You and I see two very different God's. We will be changed in different ways because of this. You spend a great deal of time beholding and defending a man made theory found and supported nowhere in scripture. This is the God you worship, who is the creation of a man named Darwin, not the God described in scripture. This is your own choice. You have chosen the wisdom of this world over the testimony of the holy scriptures on this point. So be it. You may waste your time continuing to tell me and others what we have learned truth because you and those of your man made faith have spoken, but those who choose God's word over mans word will never acknowledge such.

QuoteMost creationist organization now admit that new species, genera, and families evolve.  (some go even further)  But they don't want to call it evolution.

I am not a member of any creationist organization, I simply believe the bible. Nor do I accept or believe your above claim simply because you said so. A little more evidence might be convincing, not that this would change my mind, my decisions are not based upon what others have concluded. Remember, many of us don't believe we have learned the truth just because you spoke it as you do, we'll need a little more evidence and substance.

QuoteIf YE creationists just retreat a little farther, we won't have anything to argue about.

I see that you also believe you are winning some kind of intellectual battle with YE's in your own mind as well. You and I will never see eye to eye on this point, unless one of us changes our faith. I do not lean on other fallen beings such as myself for my beliefs, I believe the word of God. It matters not what those you call YE's do, they are not the source of my convictions or beliefs. They are like minded individuals who share their observations and speculations in relation to faith in God's word, as evolutionists do with their faith in Darwin's word.

QuoteCheck out the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium equation.  What do you see wrong, there?   If you can figure that out, we'll go on to something a little more technical.

Ah yes, the old, if you can handle what I already know, we can continue from their ploy. You just don't get it. We read about and determine our faiths from two completely different and conflicting sources. We will never agree until this underlying premise changes for one or both of us. No equation will change that. You will take the sum one way, and I will take it another. So be it.

As usual, creationists don't want to get into the particulars, especially the math.   

QuoteYou will take the sum one way, and I will take it another. So be it.

The cool thing about math is that it is what it is;  that's why YE creationists avoid it.

Let's go on to a favorite YE subject, "information."     The way scientists determine information in a population is the same way it's determined in other things, such as messages via electronic media.     The formula for finding the information of any particular gene (in this case with two alleles) is relatively simple:

Information is:   
Where m is information, and p_(x) is the frequency of allele x in the population.   If you take the frequency of each, times the log of the frequency of each, and sum them all up, the negative value of that number is the information for that gene in the population.

If there's only one allele for a particular gene then the information is 0.   That is, knowing what the allele for that organism is, tells you exactly nothing; you already know what it will be, before checking.    If there are two alleles, each 0.5 in frequency, then the information is about 0.3.   If there are three alleles, then the information will be about 0.48.    As you see, the more alleles, the more information you'll get by checking any particular organism, because the uncertainty of the allele is greater if there are more possibilities.

Questions?

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Dec 08, 2019 - 15:12:35
As usual, creationists don't want to get into the particulars, especially the math.   

The cool thing about math is that it is what it is;  that's why YE creationists avoid it.

A truly ignorant statement from one who believes themselves to be so wise. Evolutionists avoid statistical probabilities like the plague, and for very good reason. It destroys their theory. Of course they will see the numbers one way, while creationists see them another altogether. Same issue over and over. The bottom line is where one places their faith.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Dec 08, 2019 - 15:25:59
Let's go on to a favorite YE subject, "information."     The way scientists determine information in a population is the same way it's determined in other things, such as messages via electronic media.     The formula for finding the information of any particular gene (in this case with two alleles) is relatively simple:

Information is:   
Where m is information, and p_(x) is the frequency of allele x in the population.   If you take the frequency of each, times the log of the frequency of each, and sum them all up, the negative value of that number is the information for that gene in the population.

If there's only one allele for a particular gene then the information is 0.   That is, knowing what the allele for that organism is, tells you exactly nothing; you already know what it will be, before checking.    If there are two alleles, each 0.5 in frequency, then the information is about 0.3.   If there are three alleles, then the information will be about 0.48.    As you see, the more alleles, the more information you'll get by checking any particular organism, because the uncertainty of the allele is greater if there are more possibilities.

Questions?

Where did the information come from? Measuring info does not explain where it came from, or who, what, why, and when, it came about and continually increased according to your pet theory in any case. Do you claim information evolved as well? Such would only greatly add to the statistical probability nightmare evolution already has. Information is not a plus for the theory of evolution but in the minds of fairy tale evolutionists themselves. Of course your not a real evolutionist, you believe God is in the mix somewhere, no doubt He supplied the information. Is that correct? Creationists certainly believe so. We say it was there from the beginning. Measurements of it prove nothing one way or another. Nothing in any case that both evolutionist and creationist faiths already allow for.

Barbarian observes:
Information is:   
Where m is information, and p(x) is the frequency of allele x in the population.   If you take the frequency of each, times the log of the frequency of each, and sum them all up, the negative value of that number is the information for that gene in the population.

If there's only one allele for a particular gene then the information is 0.   That is, knowing what the allele for that organism is, tells you exactly nothing; you already know what it will be, before checking.    If there are two alleles, each 0.5 in frequency, then the information is about 0.3.   If there are three alleles, then the information will be about 0.48.    As you see, the more alleles, the more information you'll get by checking any particular organism, because the uncertainty of the allele is greater if there are more possibilities.

Questions?

Quote from: Amo on Sun Dec 08, 2019 - 18:35:54
Where did the information come from?

Mutation.  As the example above shows, every new mutation adds information to the population.   If you don't understand how, I'll show you an example.   Just ask.

QuoteMeasuring info does not explain where it came from, or who, what, why, and when, it came about and continually increased according to your pet theory in any case.

We already know that.   As you just learned, every new mutation adds information to a population.

QuoteDo you claim information evolved as well? Such would only greatly add to the statistical probability nightmare evolution already has.

See above.  You're wrong again.   But if you'd like to do the statistical calculations to support your belief,  I'd be willing to look at them.  What do you have?

QuoteInformation is not a plus for the theory of evolution

See above.  The Hardy-Weinberg equation and Shannon information equation are just two ways in which information supports evolution.   

QuoteOf course your not a real evolutionist, you believe God is in the mix somewhere,

Most evolutionists do.  You've been misled about that, as well:
https://biologos.org/

Quoteno doubt He supplied the information. Is that correct?

God doesn't have to tinker with the universe to fix mistakes.   He made no mistakes.   So as Christians realize, He created the earth to bring forth life.    He produced a universe that would make life able to generate new information.    God's is much wiser and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.



 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOcndUvedGc

Good video about the flood and north America.

That is either a spoof on the world wide flood or a most ignorant explanation of continental movement, mountain formation and plate tectonics that one could imagine.

Hilariously wrong.   How do hard rock layers bend  over a few month's time?    Such bending requires many years of gradual deformation.   Which is only one goof this guy committed. 

Far as I can see, he just lied about dinosaur fossils in the same strata a marine fossils.   

Continued from reply #150. The quoted authors work will be in black, my comments in blue, and all other references or quotes posted and or linked as such.

Our ability to see began to evolve long before animals radiated. Visual pigments, like retinal, are found in all animal lineages, and were first harnessed by prokaryotes to respond to changes in light more than 2.5 billion years ago. But the first complex eyes can be found about 540 million years ago, during a time of rapid diversification colloquially referred to as the Cambrian Explosion. It all began when comb jellies, sponges and jellyfish, along with clonal bacteria, were the first to group photoreceptive cells and create light-sensitive 'eyespots'. These primitive visual centers could detect light intensity, but lacked the ability to define objects. That's not to say, though, that eyespots aren't important - eyespots are such an asset that they arose independently in at least 40 different lineages. But it was the other invertebrate lineages that would take the simple eyespot and turn it into something incredible.

I wonder just exactly what evolutionists think animals radiated from? What is the source of radiating evolution? Do they think random chance radiates highly complex life forms?

Does random chance keep track of what is an asset to the development of complexity of life, so that it may repeat whatever processes brought it about again and again? What does random chance have to do with lineages at all, let alone those lineages planning and executing the organization of cells  unto increasingly complex and incredible organ function? This in cooperation with many others composing a single extremely complex, intricate, and purpose driven life form?

Ah yes, let's not forget the Cambrian Explosion either, where random chance got real busy in its lab and began the processes of rapid diversification. Literally exploding life upon earth. The fairy tale called evolution becomes ever increasingly unlikely every step of the way along its yellow brick road. Nevertheless, this is the hight of human "scientific" intellect among those who reject the testimony of the holy scriptures in favor of the same. So be it, the scriptures have predicted and addressed the same.

Psa 94:8 Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? 9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? 10 He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? 11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. 12 Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Dec 14, 2019 - 17:43:11
That is either a spoof on the world wide flood or a most ignorant explanation of continental movement, mountain formation and plate tectonics that one could imagine.

This is because you know exactly how a global flood would have effected all these things, right? Or to the contrary, you now exactly how deep time did such, correct? Just who or what is the benefactor of your proclaimed superior knowledge, if you don't mind my asking?

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Dec 15, 2019 - 08:41:48
Hilariously wrong.   How do hard rock layers bend  over a few month's time?    Such bending requires many years of gradual deformation.   Which is only one goof this guy committed. 

Far as I can see, he just lied about dinosaur fossils in the same strata a marine fossils.   

Yea, rock bends real easy if you bend it real slow like. Everyone knows this, as we have been watching rocks bend over millions of years of course.

https://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-fossils-found-marine-rocksagain

QuoteDinosaur Fossils Found in Marine Rocks...Again

Another spectacular dinosaur fossil discovery baffled paleontologists who deny the historical accuracy of the book of Genesis. New Scientist recently reported the identification of a T. rex-like dinosaur from Upper Cretaceous system rocks in North Africa.1 What confounded the scientists were the phosphate-rich rocks in which the bones were found—rocks indicative of deposition in an open ocean.

The new species was dubbed Chenanisaurus barbaricus by its discoverer Nick Longrich of the University of Bath, UK.1 He identified the dinosaur from a jaw bone fragment found in the mines at Sidi Chennane, Morocco. He and his colleagues from Morocco, France, and Spain concluded the dinosaur was an Abelisaur—a type of theropod similar to the Tyrannosarus rex. Longrich determined that its teeth were worn from a life spent biting into bone, which suggests this dinosaur was a predatory meat-eater.

He added, "This find is unusual because it's a dinosaur from marine rocks—it's a bit like hunting for fossil whales and finding a fossil lion. It's an incredibly rare find—almost like winning the lottery."

But the discovery of a dinosaur in marine rocks should be no surprise to Longrich and his colleagues, as a group of paleontologists had concluded earlier that nearly all Cretaceous dinosaurs across Europe were buried in marine rocks.2

https://creation.com/two-fish-and-pterosaur-fossilized-together

QuoteThree become one

Two fish and a pterosaur locked in a fatal struggle

......................................

Puzzles over fossilisation and rock formation

It is the death, and ultimately the exquisite preservation, of the Aspidorhynchus that becomes problematic for secular long-age geology. It is the death, and ultimately the exquisite preservation, of the Aspidorhynchus that becomes problematic for secular long-age geology. This is because long-age geologists do not agree on how the limestone, or the fossils it contains, were formed. While quite a number of the fossils found in the Solnhofen limestone have been documented in Creation magazine2 and secular publications before, a recent secular journal article highlights that, "In contrast to the well-studied wealth of fossils, little is known about the origin and diagenesis3 of the host rock ... . Publications dealing with the sedimentary matrix, the depositional system and the diagenesis of plattenkalk4 are scarce and, to date, no satisfactory model is available to explain the depositional system or the diagenesis of plattenkalk series in general and of the Solnhofen occurrences in particular".5 Secular long-age geologists will continue to struggle to explain the depositional system, or to create a satisfactory model for the limestone formation, as long as they persist in deliberately ignoring the biblical world-wide Flood and mingle together the clearly opposed ideology of millions of years with the extraordinary nature of the fossils found within it which require rapid deposition...........................................

https://www.icr.org/article/8769/

QuoteDinosaurs in Marine Sediments: A Worldwide Phenomenon

For many years, paleontologists have known of marine fossils within various dinosaur-bearing rock units in the American West. These occurrences are largely ignored by mainstream scientists who deny that dinosaurs were buried in the global and recent Flood, as described in Genesis.

The Hell Creek Formation in eastern Montana has yielded many T. rex specimens, including well-documented dinosaur soft-tissue fossils. Surprisingly, in two volumes of papers published specifically on the Hell Creek discoveries, little is mentioned of the five species of shark and 14 species of fish fossils that are indicative of marine influence.1,2 Secular scientists either ignore these findings or dismiss them as all freshwater sharks and freshwater fish, in spite of the more likely conclusion that they represent marine organisms.

Other authors have studied the fauna of the Hell Creek Formation since the 1950s and found ample evidence of a mixture of marine and non-marine fossils.3,4 As Joseph Hartman and James Kirkland stated, "Although previously reported, knowledge of the continuation of marine conditions above the Fox Hills Formation [in the Hell Creek Formation] is not well or widely known."1

It is now becoming obvious that the mixing of terrestrial and marine environments is not a rare occurrence in the rock record. Recent discoveries in Morocco and Europe have shown that most dinosaurs are found with marine fossils or buried in marine sediments.

Nizar Ibrahim et al. reported that sharks, sawfish, ray-finned fishes, and coelocanths were found in the same rock layers as a Spinosaurus dinosaur in Morocco.5 How can this be? Today's coelocanths live about 500 feet below the ocean surface and not in freshwater rivers as many paleontologists have proposed. They dismiss the blatant physiological evidence from living specimens and insist that ancient coelocanths must have lived in fresh water simply because they are found in strata with dinosaurs. Where is the logic in this conclusion?

Zoltan Csiki-Sava and his colleagues surveyed all the recent research on dinosaur occurrences in Europe within the six accepted stages of the Late Cretaceous system. The team reported that "although isolated occurrences of continental [terrestrial] vertebrate fossils were occasionally reported from the Cenomanian to lower Santonian [lower four Upper Cretaceous stages] of Europe, these were mainly from marginal marine deposits."6 And the vast majority of these dinosaur occurrences were even found in open marine chalk and limestone deposits mixed with marine invertebrates.

Their survey of the upper two stages of the Cretaceous also showed nearly all dinosaur fossils were located in marine rocks. Here, too, the paleontologists reported numerous discoveries of dinosaur remains in open marine chalk beds that are difficult to explain in a uniformitarian context. "Although these are isolated skeletal elements [individual bones] that washed out to sea, they are remarkably common and have been reported in surprisingly large numbers since the early discoveries."6

Dinosaur fossils found in rock strata with marine fossils are commonplace, not the exception. The mounting empirical evidence cannot be ignored or simply explained away as a rare occurrence. The fossil evidence supports a catastrophic and global flood that mixed the marine realm with the terrestrial realm as tsunami-like waves spread ocean fauna and sediments across the continents. Genesis 7 and 8 describe this process better than any secular scientist could imagine.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/disharmonious-fossils/

QuoteDisharmonious Fossils

Evolutionists love to tout the fossil record as evidence for their theory. No less an authority for evolution than Richard Dawkins has said, "All the fossils that we have ever found have always been found in the appropriate place in the time sequence. There are no fossils in the wrong place."1 Dawkins's statement is emphatic and confident. It makes for a good quotation. However, Dawkins is wrong. Fossils are often found where they are not expected, and these finds cause evolutionists to frequently revise their timelines.

Evolutionists have a lot of problems with the fossil record. One of these problems comes from plants. The evolutionary paradigm suggests that angiosperms (flowering plants) evolved around 120 million years ago. While flowers are too delicate to easily fossilize, the pollen they produce is not.

Pollen fossils are found periodically, including a recent find in Switzerland. Researchers from the University of Zurich studied six types of pollen fossils carefully and claimed they were 240 million years old. The study, published in 2013, proclaimed, "The described pollen grains show all the essential features of angiosperm pollen."2 However, because this would make fossilized angiosperm pollen twice as old as known angiosperm plant fossils, the very next sentence claimed that they had to be only similar to angiosperm pollen, not the same. Yet the study's authors had just admitted that the fossils had all the features of angiosperm pollen. Their dogma appears to be interfering with their science.

POLLEN FOSSILS ARE NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM IN THE FOSSIL RECORD THAT EVOLUTIONISTS MUST RESOLVE.

Pollen fossils are not the only problem in the fossil record that evolutionists must resolve. In 2012, researchers announced the discovery of two Sinocalliopteryx skeletons with meals preserved in their stomachs.3 Sinocalliopteryx was a mid-sized theropod dinosaur. It supposedly lived around 124 million years ago. Yet these skeletons were found with the undigested remains of modern-looking birds called Confuciusornis in their stomachs. This pigeon-sized bird was very similar to modern birds, with smaller forearms and claws on the wings being the major differences. Yet this largely modern-looking bird was found inside a dinosaur fossil over 100 million years old. An essentially modern bird should not have been found there, according to the evolutionary timeline.

A second such example was published in 2005. A large opossum-sized creature called Repenomamus (a mammal) was discovered in China with a juvenile Psittacosaurus (a dinosaur) undigested in its stomach. This example was upsetting for evolutionists since they had previously presumed that the "early" mammals had been small and herbivorous. The study indirectly admitted this in the abstract: "Our discoveries constitute the first direct evidence that some triconodont mammals were carnivorous and fed on small vertebrates, including young dinosaurs, and also show that Mesozoic mammals had a much greater range of body sizes than previously known."4 In other words, mammals weren't just small and herbivorous as evolutionists had predicted they were. These fossils are proof of that.

Evolutionists struggle with other fossils as well. A study from North Carolina State University in January of 2005 announced that a fossil specimen from Antarctica had been identified as a duck, flipping the evolutionary script. Ducks, some argued, were not supposed to have diverged from their ancestral forms until after the Cretaceous period. Yet this fossil was dated to the late Cretaceous period approximately 70 million years ago, according to evolutionists. The fossil caused the study's authors to speculate that "at least duck, chicken and ratite bird relatives were coextant with non-avian dinosaurs."5 These evolutionists were being quite honest. Modern birds thus existed with the dinosaurs they are supposed to have evolved from. This is a big problem and not harmonious with the evolutionary worldview. Predictably, it provoked an angry response.

No evolutionist disputed the dating of the fossil. However, this did not prevent them from challenging the veracity of the identification of the fossil as a duck. A respected paleornithologist, Professor Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, publicly proclaimed he did not believe it was a duck. "This is basically an unidentifiable bundle of bones. . . . This is a well-known specimen that has been kicking around since 1992, and it was originally described as belonging to an extinct group. And now all of a sudden it's a modern duck,"6 Dr. Feduccia told BBC News when the study was released to the public. Undaunted, the study's lead author, Dr. Julia Clark, then of North Carolina State University and a Yale graduate, doubled down on the findings, telling BBC, "Now we have a fossil which indicates that at least part of the diversification of living birds had begun before the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs."7 Her point was that living bird kinds had existed alongside dinosaurs, just as creationists would predict.

A recent study published in Nature Communications confirms this problem for evolutionists. The study examined the fossil of a recently hatched bird found in Europe. Classed as an unknown species of Enantiornithes, the fossil was dated to be around 127 million years old.8 Closer examination of the study revealed some very interesting details. The structure of the bones was such that it is highly unlikely it could have flown upon hatching. The wings were incomplete, so it is impossible to tell if this bird had claws on its wings. Even if it did, some modern birds also have claws on their wings, though most of them are flightless. Further, even using sophisticated scanning methods, no teeth were revealed. Since living birds lack teeth, this would seem to indicate that this chick was like the kinds of birds we see today. Lest evolutionists challenge this conclusion by pointing out that tooth development could have occurred post hatching, another independent study found that chickens contain the genetic information for teeth. However, while turning on that genetic information for teeth development is a fatal mutation, teeth develop in the embryo, prior to the chick hatching out of its shell.9 If the fossil Enantiornithes chick was going to develop teeth, it would have done so prior to hatching.

The implications of the Enantiornithes chick fossil are significant. It has all the features of a modern bird. It was a largely helpless chick, just like a modern bird. It was flightless at hatching and lacked teeth. Yet evolutionists assigned it a date in the 120 million years range. This raises the significant question of how a modern-looking bird could have coexisted with dinosaurs in the evolutionary paradigm. It is not harmonious with the expected evolutionary fossil record.

FOSSIL FORMATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE LEND CREDENCE TO THE LACK OF HARMONY IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.

Fossil formations across the globe lend credence to the lack of harmony in the fossil record. The Thomas Fork Formation in Wyoming contains fossil snails, fish scales, turtle carapaces, reptile bones, and dinosaur eggshells, which should not all be found together.10 The Guimarota coal mine in Portugal revealed Archaeopteryx like teeth, Multituberculata, which are mammals similar to marsupials, and dinosaur teeth before the mine flooded.11 Fossil bird teeth, fossil dinosaur teeth, and mammals all in the same place is indicative that they lived together by evolutionists' own logic.

There are other such fossil-rich formations as well. The Owl Creek Formation in Mississippi contains Triceratops kind teeth and marine ammonite fossils.12 Egg Mountain in Montana contains fossilized Maiasaurus bones along with their eggs in what are claimed to be nests.13 However, it also contains Multituberculata (mammal) fossils. The Cedar Mountain Formation in Utah contains fossils of dinosaurs, sharks, and lungfish.14 Of course, sharks live in the water, but dinosaurs live on land. The two should not be fossilized together if the fossils in this rock unit represented a buried biological community in its environment as is commonly supposed.

THE EVOLUTIONARY STORY IS LIKE ELASTIC: IT IS CONSTANTLY STRETCHED TO FIT NEW FINDS.

The above examples are by no means an exhaustive list of the disharmony that exists in the fossil record. Examining every bonebed and graveyard and producing the examples of disharmony that exist within the geologic record would take more space than is available for this article. Yet in each case examined here, with the exception of the most recent Enantiornithes discovery, evolutionists have either ignored the issue or simply adapted their timelines. The evolutionary story is like elastic: it is constantly stretched to fit new finds.

The major problem with evolutionists' handling of the fossil record comes from their worldview. Instead of questioning their belief when a fossil is found in an unexpected place, they impose their worldview on the record and then make adjustments to their "just-so stories." Thus, no piece of fossil evidence, no matter how damaging to the evolutionary tale cannot be explained. This, however, is not science, but storytelling by scientists who weren't there in the past to observe what happened and how it happened. All they have is the observable evidence in the present from which to infer what might have happened in the past based on their insistence on purely natural processes. True science makes testable predictions, part of the scientific method referred to as falsifiability. In order for something to be scientific, there has to be a way for it to be disproved. If the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record can accommodate any discovery, then their evolutionary fable is never falsifiable.

ULTIMATELY, THE BATTLE IS NOT SIMPLY OVER THE FOSSILS. EVIDENCE, WHILE VALUABLE, IS NOT THE ULTIMATE ARBITRATOR.

Ultimately, the battle is not simply over the fossils. Evidence, while valuable, is not the ultimate arbitrator. Evolutionists will only change their minds when they change their worldview. Evolutionists use their worldview to interpret the fossil record to support their worldview in a dizzying round of circular reasoning. Because the past is not observable, it must be interpreted based on the scientist's worldview assumptions. So, evolutionists (either consciously or subconsciously) impose their worldview on the evidence. Thus it should surprise no one that the resulting interpretation always supports their worldview. Disharmony in the record can be shoehorned into their theory because they are not guided simply by evidence. Instead, they are guided by their worldview in interpreting the evidence. Thus their resulting stories can never be dogmatically asserted as fact.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 10:44:37This is because you know exactly how a global flood would have effected all these things, right? Or to the contrary, you now exactly how deep time did such, correct? Just who or what is the benefactor of your proclaimed superior knowledge, if you don't mind my asking?

What I know is that what the video presented was absolute garbage.  You can believe what you want about the flood.  But to present the unscientific and anti-scientific crap as in the video as support for a global flood is nothing but the sheer absurdity derived in ignorance.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 10:36:09I wonder just exactly what evolutionists think animals radiated from? What is the source of radiating evolution?

Because choanoflagellate protests are so similar to choanocytes in sponges (the most primitive animals), it was hypothesized that these protists gave rise to animals. The hypothesis was tested by comparing genes of the two:

Nature volume 451, pages783–788(2008)
The genome of the choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis and the origin of metazoans
Nicole King, M. Jody Westbrook, Daniel Rokhsar
Abstract
Choanoflagellates are the closest known relatives of metazoans. To discover potential molecular mechanisms underlying the evolution of metazoan multicellularity, we sequenced and analysed the genome of the unicellular choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis. The genome contains approximately 9,200 intron-rich genes, including a number that encode cell adhesion and signalling protein domains that are otherwise restricted to metazoans. Here we show that the physical linkages among protein domains often differ between M. brevicollis and metazoans, suggesting that abundant domain shuffling followed the separation of the choanoflagellate and metazoan lineages. The completion of the M. brevicollis genome allows us to reconstruct with increasing resolution the genomic changes that accompanied the origin of metazoans.


As predicted, genetic data confirms the hypothesis.

QuoteDo they think random chance radiates highly complex life forms?

As you learned, Darwin's discovery is that it doesn't happen by chance.

QuoteDoes random chance keep track of what is an asset to the development of complexity of life, so that it may repeat whatever processes brought it about again and again?

Luria and Delbruck got their shared Nobel for demonstrating that favorable mutations don't appear in response to need. 

QuoteWhat does random chance have to do with lineages at all, let alone those lineages planning and executing the organization of cells  unto increasingly complex and incredible organ function?

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all.

But the smart money is on the swift; no sure thing, but they tend to survive.   That's all that's needed.

QuoteThis in cooperation with many others composing a single extremely complex, intricate, and purpose driven life form?

Not at first, anyway.   Sponges are not extremely complex, intricate, or purpose-driven.   But things moved on from there.   Would you like to learn about that?

QuoteAh yes, let's not forget the Cambrian Explosion either, where random chance got real busy in its lab and began the processes of rapid diversification.

You're wrong, again.   First, complex organisms, including some once thought to have first appeared in the Cambrian, were thriving long before the Cambrian.  And the rapid diversification occurred just when organisms first evolved complete exoskeletons.  Which suddenly opened up a very large number of lifestyles.   So chance again,didn't have much to do with it.

The fairy tale called creationism becomes ever increasingly unlikely every step of the way along its yellow brick road.    Those who reject the testimony of the holy scriptures in favor of creationism ignore both scripture and science.. So be it, the scriptures have predicted and addressed the same.

Psa 94:8 Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? 9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? 10 He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? 11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. 12 Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;

But there won't be an "wrath" about it.   How you feel about evolution will not matter to your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism or evolution, and demand that  Christians must believe it your way to be saved.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 12:16:50
What I know is that what the video presented was absolute garbage.  You can believe what you want about the flood.  But to present the unscientific and anti-scientific crap as in the video as support for a global flood is nothing but the sheer absurdity derived in ignorance.

Of course, anyone theorizing in accordance with scriptural testimony is absolutely ignorant. As opposed to theorizing according to the vain imaginings of fallen humanity, which is of course so very highly intellectual. Right 4WD. That ignorant prophet Moses was just telling a story about things which he could not explain, and had no idea of. Not like the modern prophets of Darwinism whom your faith is in, some of whom deny God altogether, but are nevertheless so very very right and intelligent. Filled with the spirit of God and therefore truth as they are, according to your gospel I suppose.

Pro 16:25  There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Seems an appropriate application to the theory of evolution which is filled with and requires countless trillions of deaths along its proclaimed road of progression. So be it. Please do share and enlighten us as to just exactly what parts of the video under examination are so preposterous.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 19:15:23
Because choanoflagellate protests are so similar to choanocytes in sponges (the most primitive animals), it was hypothesized that these protists gave rise to animals. The hypothesis was tested by comparing genes of the two:

Nature volume 451, pages783–788(2008)
The genome of the choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis and the origin of metazoans
Nicole King, M. Jody Westbrook, Daniel Rokhsar
Abstract
Choanoflagellates are the closest known relatives of metazoans. To discover potential molecular mechanisms underlying the evolution of metazoan multicellularity, we sequenced and analysed the genome of the unicellular choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis. The genome contains approximately 9,200 intron-rich genes, including a number that encode cell adhesion and signalling protein domains that are otherwise restricted to metazoans. Here we show that the physical linkages among protein domains often differ between M. brevicollis and metazoans, suggesting that abundant domain shuffling followed the separation of the choanoflagellate and metazoan lineages. The completion of the M. brevicollis genome allows us to reconstruct with increasing resolution the genomic changes that accompanied the origin of metazoans.


As predicted, genetic data confirms the hypothesis.

As you learned, Darwin's discovery is that it doesn't happen by chance.

Luria and Delbruck got their shared Nobel for demonstrating that favorable mutations don't appear in response to need. 

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all.

But the smart money is on the swift; no sure thing, but they tend to survive.   That's all that's needed.

Not at first, anyway.   Sponges are not extremely complex, intricate, or purpose-driven.   But things moved on from there.   Would you like to learn about that?

You're wrong, again.   First, complex organisms, including some once thought to have first appeared in the Cambrian, were thriving long before the Cambrian.  And the rapid diversification occurred just when organisms first evolved complete exoskeletons.  Which suddenly opened up a very large number of lifestyles.   So chance again,didn't have much to do with it.

The fairy tale called creationism becomes ever increasingly unlikely every step of the way along its yellow brick road.    Those who reject the testimony of the holy scriptures in favor of creationism ignore both scripture and science.. So be it, the scriptures have predicted and addressed the same.

Psa 94:8 Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? 9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? 10 He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? 11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. 12 Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;

But there won't be an "wrath" about it.   How you feel about evolution will not matter to your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism or evolution, and demand that  Christians must believe it your way to be saved.

Of course you are preaching to the quire when you tell me that chance didn't have anything to do with it, and I do appreciate your use of the word theory or theorizing when referring to your theory of evolution. If you are suggesting that God was actively involved in the processes you call evolution so that they were not chance oriented, this would be acceptable. If on the other hand you suggest He just started the process and then simply observed, then the idea of chance accomplishing evolution is still absurd. Undirected natural biological evolution is nothing but a ludicrous suggestion which cannot be considered a "scientific" theory by any rational. It is far to statistically improbable for serious consideration as such. Such is certainly in the realm of faith, not science.