Search This Blog

Sunday, May 28, 2006

Creation makes sense

If there was no macroevolution hypothesis, the evidence being found in the world today would simply fit in nicely with creation. Here are three examples:

Spiral Wonder of the Spider Web (#200605)by Frank Sherwin, M.S.


Abstract

Evolutionists, true to their worldview, call this amazing ability of the cheliceriforms nothing more than a unique adaptation.


Spider WebHere's an easy recipe: take food, metabolically convert it into sticky glue. Then, allow air to contact it while rapidly stretching it into an impossibly narrow, nimble thread as strong as steel. There you have it—spider silk. We tend to take for granted the incredible detail and beauty of a typical spider web. The Creator designed most species of spider to secrete a special thread (web) that scientists have long appreciated and have attempted to emulate. They have found that web strands are comparable in strength to fused quartz fibers. Zoologists discovered that spiders have anywhere from one to four pairs of spinnerets located in the opisthosoma (abdomen) of the spider (the normal number are three pairs). In addition, there are along with the spinnerets seven silk glands, each making a strand for a unique purpose. Many dozens of tiny tubes lead to these specially designed abdominal glands. In a process not completely understood, a special scleroprotein-based substance is released as a liquid which then seems to harden as it is pulled from the spinneret.

One silk gland produces thread for cocoons and another for encapsulation of prey. The two seem to be the same, but they require different especially designed silk. Other glands make the walking thread so the spider doesn't encumber herself, while another makes the sticky material that captures prey. We are unable to see some of the finer threads unless the light is reflected just right. In fact, during World War II, only spider silk was fine enough to be used for cross hairs in some bomb sights. However, spider silk is also robust with a tensile strength fives times that of steel and elasticity, able to stop a lumbering bumblebee at full speed. Some scientists describe the web patterns much like those mirrored by many flowers in sunlight (UV light). Insects that are searching for nectar see the "flower" patterned web in the UV spectrum and fly unwittingly into the sticky trap.

Some spiders even use a long trailing thread for a process called "ballooning." The creature secretes a line and allows the wind to carry it—and the spider—aloft for places unknown. Spiders have landed on ships far out at sea.

Evolutionists, true to their worldview, call this amazing ability of the cheliceriforms nothing more than a unique adaptation. Two secular authors state,

Each spider engineers a style of web characteristic of its species and builds it perfectly on the first try. This complex behavior is apparently inherited.1

Earliest evidence of a spider's silk-spinning activity is a fossil discovered from "380 million-year-old" sedimentary rocks near Gilboa, New York.2 It is clear that spiders—along with their silk-producing parts—have always been spiders according to the fossil record and the creation model.

1. Campbell & Reece, Biology, Benjamin Cummings, 2005, p. 658.
2.
See also here


So spiders have a process to make their webbing material that we cannot duplicate and fully understand. It is something they were doing when dinosaurs are acknowledged to walk the globe. We see nothing to indicate any kind of macroevolution here. The next two articles will be portions and a link will take you to read the rest:

Amazing Abalone Armour

by Jonathan Sarfati

Abalones are a shellfish famous both for edible flesh and the brilliant colours of its inner shell. The Maori people of New Zealand call it paua (pronounced PAH wa), and make beautiful jewellery from the shells. But materials scientists are interested in its great strength, and hope to learn how to make body armour using its techniques. Technology copying the designs of life is called biomimetics.

Other shells, such as the conch, also use intricately structured composite materials to produce great strength.1 They are mainly made out of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), with a tiny amount of protein, but it’s the way this is arranged that makes the shells so much tougher than pure calcium carbonate could ever be. The abalone has a different but equally ingenious structure of protein and calcium carbonate.


Read the rest - "...…even the simplest bio-induced structures are currently impossible to synthesize"

Another design in nature we cannot reproduce, yet macroevolutionists believe it happened largely by chance - the operation of natural selection on mutation. But we, with thousands of years of knowledge, sentinent creatures, are unable to duplicate the design.


Comparative similarities: homology

by Dr. Gary Parker

First published in
Creation: Facts of Life
Chapter 1: Evidence of creation

Look at your arm for a moment and try to picture the bones inside. There’s one bone attached to the body, two bones in the forearm, a little group of wrist bones, and bones that radiate out into the fingers. As it turns out, there are many other living things that have forelimbs with a similar pattern: the foreleg of a horse or dog, the wing of a bat, and the flipper of a penguin, for example, as shown in Fig. 6. Biologists use the term “homology” for such similarities in basic structure.
Figure 6

Figure 6. Bones in the human arm, the forelimbs of horses and dogs, a bat’s wing, and a penguin’s flipper all share a similarity in basic structural pattern called homology. What does this similarity (homology) mean: descent from a common ancestor (evolution), or creation according to a common plan (creation)?

Why should there be that kind of similarity? Why should a person’s arm have the same kind of bone pattern as the leg of a dog and the wing of a bat? There are two basic ideas. One of these is the evolutionary idea of descent from a common ancestor. That idea seems to make sense, since that’s the way we explain such similarities as brothers and sisters looking more alike than cousins do. They have parents closer in common.

Using descent from a common ancestor to explain similarities is probably the most logical and appealing idea that evolutionists have. Isaac Asimov, well-known science fiction writer, was so pleased with the idea that he said our ability to classify plants and animals on a groups-within-groups hierarchical basis virtually forces scientists to treat evolution as a “fact.” In his enthusiasm, Asimov apparently forgot that we can classify kitchen utensils on a groups-within-groups basis, but that hardly forces anyone to believe that knives evolved into spoons, spoons into forks, or saucers into cups and plates.

After all, there’s another reason in our common experience why things look alike. It’s creation according to a common plan. That’s why Fords and Chevrolets have more in common than Fords and sailboats. They share more design features in common.

What’s the more logical inference from our observation of bone patterns and other examples of homology: descent from a common ancestor, or creation according to a common plan? In many cases, either explanation will work, and we can’t really tell which is more reasonable. But there seem to be times when the only thing that works is creation according to a common design.

I get support for my claim again from Denton,16 in his chapter titled “The Failure of Homology.” Dr. Denton is not only a research scientist with a Ph.D. in molecular biology, but also an M.D. with an intimate knowledge of comparative anatomy and embryology. He admits his desire to find naturalistic explanations for patterns of similarity among organisms (homology), but he also admits the failure of evolutionary explanations.


Don't be afraid, read the rest - "...In fact, when it comes to many of the similarities among molecules, the theory of evolution is not only weak, it has been falsified."

I saw something interesting this afternoon, and if you are anywhere out in the country and somewhat observant, you have seen the same: A large raptor (in this case, a Turkey Buzzard) being chased away from the nesting area of a much, much smaller bird (too far to tell, likely a sparrow). The bigger bird cannot manuever in midair as can the smaller, and therefore runs away while being hounded by the smaller. The smaller finally peels off and zooms back to the territory it has defended. It occurred to me that perhaps the bombers and fighter planes of WWII had evolved from raptors and sparrows, respectively? Why not?

You laugh, or snort, or take offense? Well, if you read the last of the three linked articles, you see another example of something I intend to assert this week: Macroevolution was not based on evidence! The concept of macroevolution came first, and then comes the attempt to squeeze the evidence into the hypothesis. I will expand on this after the holidays. Cheers!

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Creation makes sense"

Yes. In its most simplistic sense, it certainly does, to people. Likewise, so does that astonishingly widespread idea, not even really believed but testified to in our very muscles, that leaning to the side will somehow turn the bowling ball away from its headlong flight into the gutter. Step back a bit from this example, and likewise, so does the astonishingly widespread belief, across continents and centuries, in sympathetic magic - for example, that sticking pins in an effigy of someone, or performing certain actions using, say, bits of hair or pieces of nail-trimmings from a person will affect them. (In Terry Pratchet's comic fantasy Hogfather, this turns out to be a major plot device, and is described, if I remember correctly, as magic so old and basic it's hardly even really magic, which seems fairly accurate, in a certain, imaginative sense - it appears to be sort of cognitive universal that arises perhaps due to the way our brains work, or how we view the world. Creation is similar. We are, after all, creating creatures. Millions of years ago creatures we would never let our children marry ('Sure, she's bipedal, but she has a brain only somewhat larger than a chimp's - it could never work out!) were making relatively sophisticated stone tools - and no doubt less durable others lost in the flow of time - I'm guessing cords, net bags, etc.) Not all that long ago, for reasons we don't yet understand, we find the first pieces of evidence for another kind of creation - drawings and sculptures of people and animals. Other animals use and even, to a certain degree, make tools, but this, this is ours alone. As the poet Al Purdy wrote, in his Lament for the Dorsets (Eskimos Extinct in the 14th Century A.D.), of an imagined last Dorset, an old man alone:
Let's say his name was Kudluj
carving 2-inch ivory swans
for a dead granddaughter
taking them out of his mind
the places in his mind
where pictures are
He selects a sharp stone tool
to gouge a parallel pattern of lines
on both sides of the swan
holding it with his left hand
bearing down and transmitting
his body's weight
from brain to arm and right hand
and one of his thoughts
turns to ivory.


Looking at the world, at the divesity of life with its "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful", including the mystery of our own species, people naturally have understood it in the ways that made the most sense to them, from the Genesis account where God the sculpter makes man from earth and literally inspires him into life, to modern creationism, with God the Designer or Engineer, designing models from blueprints, like a team designing a new car.

For those who take God as a given, a certainty, it would seem that the findings of modern science would provide a better, even more accurate way to understand creation. After all, the pieces quoted testify to the marvels of the living world - as you say, things "we cannot duplicate [or] fully understand" . . . yet they do so in service to a worldview that limits God to a sort of super Honda or Boeing employee (as always, we make God in our own image, which is probably one reason why engineers are said to be rather overrepresented among the ranks of educated creationists).

If one has God as a given, is it so hard to imagine that he could have created an existence, given rise to a world, where such marvels appear from nature, as to rainbows and sunsets?

I have to get to bed. For now, I hope you'll read

Similarities and differences: understanding homology and analogy,

Similarity: Examples of homology

and

Similarity: Examples of analogy


Hopefully, you'll understand 1) why I neither laughed, snorted, or took offense at the bird/plane example, but just looked alternately frustrated, resigned, and hopeful, and 2) how you could describe this example in terms of homology and analogy - because in some ways, it's a wonderful example of these concepts - and an excellent case for evolution.

But before you read, I want you to ask yourself three questions:
1) Why are the two different kinds of thing (little bird/fighter, big bird/bomber) so similar, that you immediately see that? In other words, why is the little bird like the fighter plane, the big bird like the bomber?
2) If you had the opportunity to study both the birds and the planes in detail, how would you know that the different kinds of planes didn't evolve from the different kinds of birds, but that the birds are more closely related to each other, etc,?
3) What do we know birds do* that planes don't?

'Til next time (oh dear, I have quite a backlog of comments to make, but there've been air conditioners to install, and a garden to tend - beans are up, beets, parsnips, salsify and parslely root need thinning, etc . . .), where I will talk of arachnids and appendages.

* and bees, and even educated fleas . . .

-Dan S.

creeper said...

"If there was no macroevolution hypothesis, the evidence being found in the world today would simply fit in nicely with creation."

1. What is "macroevolution"?

2. What is the "macroevolution hypothesis"?

3. Radar, any and all evidence you could ever possibly think of fits in with the idea of a madly inconsistent creator who can work any miracle you'd care to name. Which is why it is utterly useless in a scientific context - it doesn't explain anything and doesn't deepen our understanding of the world around us.

4. The theory of evolution, which we do have today, does fit in nicely with the evidence, whereas YEC creation does not - being for example unable to explain why certain fossils are predictably found in certain strata. The theory of evolution explains this quite well, while according to the YEC/flood scenario it should not even be possible.


Your post is littered with arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity (the whole spider argument and the abalone armour argument) - like this one:

"Another design in nature we cannot reproduce, yet macroevolutionists believe it happened largely by chance - the operation of natural selection on mutation. But we, with thousands of years of knowledge, sentinent creatures, are unable to duplicate the design."

We don't know how this works yet, therefore God.

BTW, as far as "thousands of years of knowledge" goes... regarding biology, especially microbiology, we've really only just started in the last 100-200 years, and are finding out more and more all the time - DNA, the human genome etc.

"It is clear that spiders—along with their silk-producing parts—have always been spiders according to the fossil record and the creation model."

If this was your own conclusion, it is fallacious since it is not logically founded on the preceding statements.


”After all, there’s another reason in our common experience why things look alike.”

You left out the reason that certain functions happen to be beneficial to survival and/or reproduction (say, for example, flight, or sight), and the ways of achieving that function can be arrived at by different routes via natural selection. Common descent does not dictate that all life branches solely outward in different directions from the common ancestor.

The creationist argument one commonly hears for the existence of homologies is that this is supposedly an argument for a creator, since this creator would want to efficiently use something that works and apply it in different organisms. If a wing works, for example, then the creator can simply reuse it instead of inventing a different wing each and every time.

It's a pretty weak argument, since it completely fails to address why such an efficient creator would then indulge in something that is much better explained by convergent evolution, namely an organism that fulfills a similar function as another one but without using the same blueprint. (check out the links from Dan's comment)

The result? A creator who is both highly efficient and utterly inefficient at the same time - sometimes cleverly re-using parts because it is after all the efficient thing to do, other times completely re-inventing the wheel to get to the same result. No wonder “creation science” can’t come up with any falsifiable predictions.


From the AIG link: ”Patterson said that he finally awoke, after having been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth all his life, to find that evolutionary theory makes bad systematics (the science of classification).”

Given the failure of “creation science” (which has, after all, been around much, much longer than evolutionary biology) to come up with any workable classification system at all, that’s pretty funny.


”Macroevolution was not based on evidence! The concept of macroevolution came first, and then comes the attempt to squeeze the evidence into the hypothesis.”

1. What is macroevolution?

2. How about: “Creation was not based on evidence! The concept of creation came first (Genesis), and then comes the attempt to squeeze the evidence into the hypothesis.” Makes a lot more sense.

3. The theory of evolution happens to be confirmed by the available evidence. Even Darwin’s and Wallace’s initial concepts were based on observations in nature (unless you want to claim that Darwin and Wallace had no notion whatsoever of the natural world when they came up with these ideas), and later expanded on. It’s pretty normal in science to formulate a hypothesis based on a limited perspective or partial information (as Darwin and Wallace did, being unaware of DNA and Mendelian genetics, for example), compare it to the evidence, and see it confirmed or falsified accordingly. This is then adjusted, expanded, discarded according to how well it matches up with observations in nature as well as new discoveries. In that regard, the theory of evolution has done exceedingly well.

Jeffahn said...

"So spiders have a process to make their webbing material that we cannot duplicate and fully understand."

Therefore we ascribe its creation to an invisible man in the sky who loves us and will torment our enemies forever in a big sea of fiery vengeance.

cranky old fart said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cranky old fart said...

"After all, there’s another reason in our common experience why things look alike. It’s creation according to a common plan. That’s why Fords and Chevrolets have more in common than Fords and sailboats. They share more design features in common".

But as Creeper correctly points out, the "common plan" creation theory fails because it reveals "A creator who is both highly efficient and utterly inefficient at the same time - sometimes cleverly re-using parts because it is after all the efficient thing to do, other times completely re-inventing the wheel to get to the same result."

How do we reconcile this inefficient/efficient creator problem?

It's quite simple really. And Radar has already put his finger on it. We are talking Fords and Chevys here.

A God could obviously never be inefficient. There is obviously more than one God at work here, each entirely efficient in His/Her own manner.

The only question now is how many. Hmmmmm.

A Hermit said...

"Another design in nature we cannot reproduce, yet macroevolutionists believe it happened largely by chance -"

What's your point here Radar? We puny humans cannot (yet) duplicate every process in nature therefore evolution is impossible? Sorry,I just don't see the connection.

A Hermit said...

By the way, the AIG article you copied from misquotes Patterson, one of the most thoroughly debunked cases of creationist misquoting, but one they apparently still insist on using. Whatever happened to not bearing false witness?

Denton is dealt with here

A Hermit

highboy said...

"We are talking Fords and Chevys here."

Forget the Ford, take the Chevy.

radar said...

The Patterson link didn't work.



1. What is "macroevolution"?

I have already defined macroevolution, Creeper, more than once. It is the idea that one kind of creature evolves from another, to be very simple.

2. What is the "macroevolution hypothesis"?

Repetition again. That life came from non-life in some unidentidfied way and then that new life evolved into all of the forms of organisms we find in the world today.

3. Radar, any and all evidence you could ever possibly think of fits in with the idea of a madly inconsistent creator who can work any miracle you'd care to name. Which is why it is utterly useless in a scientific context - it doesn't explain anything and doesn't deepen our understanding of the world around us.

Baloney. The evidence of both why and how creation took place was available to man centuries before there was ever a Darwin. YEC take the Bible as evidence. There is nothing inconsistent about either the Bible or the Creator.

4. The theory of evolution, which we do have today, does fit in nicely with the evidence, whereas YEC creation does not - being for example unable to explain why certain fossils are predictably found in certain strata. The theory of evolution explains this quite well, while according to the YEC/flood scenario it should not even be possible.

I would say the opposite. That such strata are even found is in direct opposition to what a macroevolutionist would expect. He has to postulate all sorts of big disasters and then scratches his head concerning the world-wide evidence of catastrophism. Were there, like, nine quick world-wide floods? Nah, scientists really ought to know better, the rock layers speak, and the word they say is "flood."

Also, animals tend to run in packs or herds, so a disaster befalling a pack or herd would lump several, even hundreds, of the same kinds. Lower animals, not understanding the danger, would tend to be in the lower strata. The working of flood hydraulics and flows would tend to group like materials together in some instances.

radar said...

Convergence is such a crock! First you expect us to believe that all of life evolved, which is statistically ridiculous anyway. But then so many different organisms develop the same kinds of systems or organs but by the way macroevolution classifies organisms they did not have common ancestors so that those systems or organs developed independently? Are you kidding? Wow.

If I throw five die ten times in a row and every time the number seven comes up, I will be suspicious. If it happens twenty times in a row I will be sure that something is wrong. I then examine the die and find that one has nothing but seven on all sides! Oops. So the dice were not giving me entirely random numbers, there was a guarantee for the number seven.

You think all creatures evolved, despite the evidence of similar systems and organs. God's calling card for design is clearly evident, but you just refuse to look.

Anonymous said...

Patterson link.

Convergent evolution is not a crock, it's a very simple and deceptively powerful idea. Like Madonna, we are living in a material world, subject to the same boring laws of physics and such like. Given that, certain 'problems' - how to sense ones surroundings using light, how to move through liquid as efficiently as possible, how to fly - have obvious solutions. Human artifacts (given enough knowledge) and evolved organisms tend to settle on similar answers, since they're dealing with the same physical problems - although we have the adventage of being able to step back and think, and they just have blind trial and error -more like a brute force computing thing, where one just relies on sheer speed and time rather than more elegant approaches. Hence fish, dolphins, and subs, wing shape as above, etc.

What comes through is that evolution certainly isn't random, in any sense - it's all about bouncing off physical facts. No. I didn't explain that well.

Anyway, if I wake up in the middle of the night and can't get back to sleep, I may get to commenting about spiders and such. Until then:
from the linked Gary Parker piece -

"Like every other scientist, Denton recognizes the striking similarity in bone pattern evident in a comparison of vertebrate fore- and hind limbs. Yet no evolutionist, he says, claims that the hind limb evolved from the forelimb, or that hind limbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source. I was once taught to refer to corresponding parts of the male and female reproductive systems as “sexual homology.” But homology, in that case, could not possibly be explained by descent from a common ancestor; we can’t even imagine that males evolved from females, or vice versa, or that human beings evolved from some animal that had only one sex."

This is either evidence of gross ignorance or knowing misrepresentation on the part of both Denton and Parker. The fact is that words may - surprising fact, I know - have more than one meaning! - sometimes even several closely related ones. For example, within biology alone (it has other meanings in different disciplines). homology may refer to structures that our alike due to common *evolutionary* ancestry ( for example, our arms and, cat forelimbs, and chicken wings) or common "developmental ancestry, meaning that the structures arose from the same tissue in embryonal development (the ovaries of female humans and the testicles of male humans are homologous in this sense). Meanwhile, there is also serial homology:
"With respect to each other, forelimbs and hindlimbs are serial homologs, structures that arose as a repeated series and have become differentiated to varying degrees in different animals. Vetebrates and their associated structures (ribs); tetrapod forelimbs; digits, teeth, the mouthparts, antennae, and walking legs of arthropods [this is, in fact, an important part of the spider story]; and the fore- and hindwings of insects are also serial homologs"

(Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful, p. 29)

Ironically, while Denton was making fun of homology - my arms and legs look like each other, and they're not evolved from a common ancestor, nyuck, nyuck, nyuck! - he was inadvertetly hitting upon a very important concept - one dimly glimpsed by everyone who while hacking away at a lobster fleetingly noticed how all those little leggy bits look similar, yet different - that was a major part of the evo-devo revolution beginning right around that time - hmm, try here.

As happens so often, creationists mock science while actual scientists ignore them and keep working away, actually discovering new things about life on earth - about, if you believe in God, God's creation.

Creationists are really being rather like the poetical types who insisted that understanding how a rainbow actually works - rather than maintaining some sort of romantically fuzzy ignorance - stripped it of all its wonder and beauty:
"Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine –
Unweave a rainbow . . .
"

(John Keats, "Lamia").

Hogwash!

-Dan S.

Anonymous said...

"that our alike"

that ARE alike, I mean!

Homology, homophones - what can I say?

-Dan S.

creeper said...

Creeper: "1. What is "macroevolution"?"

Radar: "I have already defined macroevolution, Creeper, more than once. It is the idea that one kind of creature evolves from another, to be very simple."


You have on occasion defined it, but you use it in different ways all the time - we don't have to go any further than the very next paragraph to see an example of that. It's this sloppy use of the term (and your constant pretending that any debate over the influence of different mechanisms is a questioning in general of whether macroevolution occurred) that leads me to question how you define it.

Creeper: "2. What is the "macroevolution hypothesis"?"

Radar: "Repetition again. That life came from non-life in some unidentidfied way and then that new life evolved into all of the forms of organisms we find in the world today."


So now we go from one kind of creature involving into another to conflating this with abiogenesis, and labeling the whole thing as a hypothesis. The existence of macroevolution is far more than a hypothesis.

You're busy playing with fallacies of composition again, I see.

creeper: "3. Radar, any and all evidence you could ever possibly think of fits in with the idea of a madly inconsistent creator who can work any miracle you'd care to name. Which is why it is utterly useless in a scientific context - it doesn't explain anything and doesn't deepen our understanding of the world around us."

Radar: "Baloney. The evidence of both why and how creation took place was available to man centuries before there was ever a Darwin. YEC take the Bible as evidence. There is nothing inconsistent about either the Bible or the Creator."


If any kind of consistency goes out the window (as it does with a madly inconsistent creator who can bring about any miracle), then anything at all can be said to be evidence of the creator.

YECs take the Bible as evidence, but if what the Bible said was literally true, then there wouldn't be all this evidence contradicting a literal reading of certain sections of the Bible, and supporting a rival explanation.

Creeper: "4. The theory of evolution, which we do have today, does fit in nicely with the evidence, whereas YEC creation does not - being for example unable to explain why certain fossils are predictably found in certain strata. The theory of evolution explains this quite well, while according to the YEC/flood scenario it should not even be possible."

Radar: "I would say the opposite. That such strata are even found is in direct opposition to what a macroevolutionist would expect."


How is the existence of strata being found in direct opposition to what a macroevolutionist would expect?

(And I'll note that you're already - for the second time since defining 'macroevolution' above - using the term sloppily. Which is why I'll no doubt have to ask you to define the term again at some point.)

"He has to postulate all sorts of big disasters and then scratches his head concerning the world-wide evidence of catastrophism."

Are you referring to the world-wide evidence of One Big Catastrophe, or the world-wide evidence that various catastrophes have occurred in Earth's past?

"Were there, like, nine quick world-wide floods? Nah, scientists really ought to know better, the rock layers speak, and the word they say is "flood.""

I don't think "nine quick world-wide floods" were postulated by scientists, were they? The idea of a world-wide flood carries all kinds of practical problems with it. The rock layers do not say "global flood" - they, as well as the unconformities, contradict the notion of a global flood.

"Also, animals tend to run in packs or herds, so a disaster befalling a pack or herd would lump several, even hundreds, of the same kinds."

The idea was not so much that a number of similar animals would be grouped in the same location, but that they would consistently only show up in certain layers far apart from each other. The consistency of this is not compatible with YEC, but predicted by the theory of evolution and common descent - which is why the former is not an accepted scientific theory, but the latter is.

"Lower animals, not understanding the danger, would tend to be in the lower strata."

Ah, a first stab at an actual YEC explanation for this phenomenon. Not a good stab, but a first stab - but let's go with it.

By "lower" do you mean having less developed intelligence, less developed physique, or being lower to the ground? Or what?

"The working of flood hydraulics and flows would tend to group like materials together in some instances."

In some instances? Or in many identical instances across the globe? Does it make sense that "the working of flood hydraulics and flows" would result in an identical layering in many different places across the globe, such as:

* The Williston Basin of Montana, North Dakota and southern Canada
* The Ghadames Basin in Libya
* The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
* The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
* The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
* The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
* The Adana Basin in Turkey
* The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
* The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
* The Carpathian Basin in Poland
* The Baltic Basin in the USSR
* The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
* The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
* The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
* The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
* The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
* The Jiuxi Basin China
* The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
* The Tarim Basin China
* The Szechwan Basin China
* The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
* The Williston Basin in North Dakota
* The Tampico Embayment Mexico
* The Bogata Basin Colombia
* The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
* The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

What is the best explanation for the geological column existing in that layering in so many places so far apart from each other? If you propose that it all happened in about a year, then what natural forces result in that particular and consistent stacking?

IAMB said...

Lower animals, not understanding the danger, would tend to be in the lower strata.

Here it is, folks: proof that magnolia trees are 1) smarter than, and 2) can outrun velociraptors (they must do all their sprinting while we're not looking). Excuse me while I giggle.

radar said...

IAMB - a world-wide flood would involve initial catastrophism, long-term flow burials, new burials and changes during run-off and some tertiary burials during the following ice age associated with the normalization of temperatures of land and water world-wide. Hydrologists admit that we have nothing happening today that is nearly big enough to approach the kinds of flows and events involved in such a flood so one must speculate. It is pretty certain that there were huge clumps of vegetation that floated on the water during the flood, providing an island for various insects and often being buried at the end of the flood stage by runoff events rather than being buried en masse at the beginning, as some entire forests likely were buried.

One reason uninformed macroevolutionists think that the geological layers are proof of evolution is that so often the ages of the rock are identified by the kind of fossil. So when one assumes that T Rex was Jurassic and one finds T Rex fossils, one says that the rock formation is Jurassic period. Circular reasoning!

Anonymous said...

"So when one assumes that T Rex was Jurassic and one finds T Rex fossils, one says that the rock formation is Jurassic period"

Well, T. Rex is from the Cretaceous, - and when they check the rock with radiometric dating, well, it comes up as being from the Cretaceous.

Ok, so, according to the model you discuss, we have all this sloshing about and floating islands and suchlike - and yet no one ever finds any Pleistocene mammals in Paleozoic, Mesozoic, or early Cenozoic sediments, for example. Nobody ever finds a dinosaur or trilobite in Oligocene rocks. And nobody ever finds a trilobite in the same deposits as a whale, or a Stegosaurus next to a Stegodon.

Amazing, that everything would fall just right to give the impression of evolution . . .

-Dan S.

IAMB said...

It is pretty certain that there were huge clumps of vegetation that floated on the water during the flood, providing an island for various insects and often being buried at the end of the flood stage by runoff events rather than being buried en masse at the beginning, as some entire forests likely were buried.

But why are certain plants and such never found in lower strata? Certainly you wouldn't suggest that all members of certain species turned into floating debris while other similar species were buried upright? It's especially laughable when we find ferns with short roots and fungi in lower strata yet a tree with strong, deep roots gets ripped out and floats away. Not sure how you figure that.

As for the circular dating thing, your understanding of fossil dating is quite obviously from creationist sources. Fossil age can be estimated fairly well from the strata, but do you not think the rock has been dated independent of the fossils perhaps hundreds of times? Index fossils are a good indicator of age, but they're not the whole story.

radar said...

IAMB - YEC have some issues with the rock layers, not nearly as many as macroevolutionists, but some. While more often higher creatures are found in upper layers, some are hardly ever found and there are other inconsistencies that cause us to scratch our heads.

On the other hand, all these layers are much harder to explain as macroevolutionists. They are expected for YEC, though.

I am curious how rocks are being dated sans fossils, by the way?

creeper said...

"a world-wide flood would involve initial catastrophism"

Oh I get it - you're confusing the words "catastrophism" and "catastrophe". That's why all the hullaballoo about uniformitarianism being supposedly "refuted" because of the existence of things called catastrophes. Glad we've got that settled. I suppose once you comprehend this, we can make a little bit of progress here.

On the whole I'm glad we're back on this YEC topic anyway - it never fails to be the most entertaining, IMO.

"I am curious how rocks are being dated sans fossils, by the way?"

Look up mainstream sources on "radiometric dating", then publish any questions or complaints you may have, and we can all work through them together. Nice to see you being curious - good progress!

Which also goes for seeing you try to come up with an explanation for certain fossils consistently showing up in certain strata. It continues to be what the theory of evolution predicts, and it continues to be something that should be impossible according to YEC. There are people out there chatting about "going where the evidence leads", and it's bracing to see you pay no heed to them.

Don't feel bad, though - you're not a "creation scientist" after all. I just think there should be somebody out there that has fought this corner for you (what with all those thousands of years of "science" with all these insights that creationism provides), so you don't just have to make stuff up. Seriously.

Eyt sl!

(For reasons on which I will not elaborate, I had lunch with a bishop last week, and he dismissed the creation account in Genesis as very obviously not to be taken as a literal historical account. In return I expressed my pity that he would be roasting in hell. The first sentence within these parentheses is true, the second is not.)

radar said...

radiometrics date rocks accurately? Yeah, right. Hope that is not all you got.

A bishop who doesn't believe the Bible, eh? There are quite a few of them. Most, but not all, religious organizations that contain bishops gave up being true to the faith long ago.

highboy said...

"(For reasons on which I will not elaborate, I had lunch with a bishop last week, and he dismissed the creation account in Genesis as very obviously not to be taken as a literal historical account"

I'm not arguing for YEC or OEC, but I will say that you have to do better than that creeper. This means nothing. However, it is worth noting that the Church (which consists of more than just Catholics) is divided when it comes to the age of the earth. Not sure if that's relevant to anyone's argument, but at least I got the attention that I so desperatley crave. Carry on.

creeper said...

"A bishop who doesn't believe the Bible, eh?"

A bishop who doesn't believe every part of the Bible represents literal history. That's a not very subtle difference, Radar.

"I'm not arguing for YEC or OEC, but I will say that you have to do better than that creeper. This means nothing. "

Just a little anecdote, Highboy - not really intended to be a slam dunk.

"However, it is worth noting that the Church (which consists of more than just Catholics) is divided when it comes to the age of the earth."

Which makes me wonder: Does any Church actually advocate a YEC position? From what I can tell, the Catholic Church doesn't. Any others?

creeper said...

"radiometrics date rocks accurately? Yeah, right. Hope that is not all you got."

Your evasion is duly noted.

Where specifically do you see the problem with the radiometric dating process?

highboy said...

"Which makes me wonder: Does any Church actually advocate a YEC position? From what I can tell, the Catholic Church doesn't. Any others?"

No church denomination that I've seen in the Handbook of Denominations has any doctrinal statements about YEC, or evolution, either one. I could be wrong, I'm just telling you what I know of at this point.

IAMB said...

No church denomination that I've seen in the Handbook of Denominations has any doctrinal statements about YEC, or evolution, either one. I could be wrong, I'm just telling you what I know of at this point.

Former Adventist here...

They have a completely unambiguous position on the age of the earth and evolution. As for other churches... no idea.


Radar, I'm still not entirely sure why rock layers are a problem for us evilutionists. A little help here?

radar said...

radiometric dating of rocks has demonstrated anamolies. Plus, there really is no reliable touchstone. Differing methods can yield incredibly differing results. I probably should touch on that in a post.

The official Catholic position is YEC. In addition, many non-denominational and some other churches have a statement in which they declare the Bible, from cover to cover, is literally true.

Again, it was to the dismay of macroevolutionists to find the markings of water associated with the sedimentary rock layers. The first premise for macroevolution was that Lyell was right and that the rock layers were gradually deposited over long periods of time. Once it was shown that each rock layer was actually deposited very quickly via the action of water, then that was blown away.

Now the rock layers represent catastrophism. So now macroevolutionists have to suggest that multiple catastrophes happened. The YEC continues, as always, to say that the layers are the record of one world-wide flood.

Anonymous said...

"Differing methods can yield incredibly differing results"

Yeah, if you try to carbon-date granite, you get really whacky results. If you actually use appropriate dating methods (and if you're not sure why that would be silly, you might want to brush up a bit), it's generally a whole 'nother story. Of course, you need to be careful, but that goes, to a greater or lesser degree, for pretty much all kinds of scientific measurement. (At college the bio building had been built, essentially, on a marsh, and the spiffy electronic down-to-a-milligram scales kept fluctuating due to the imperceptible (for us) shifting of the building's foundations. At least that's what I was told - they might have just been cheap).

"The official Catholic position is YEC. "
I really don't think this is the case, at least for any understanding of YEC-ness I've ever seen.

wikipedia on Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church

"The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today, the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding the evolution of man's material body are not in conflict, and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origins. This view falls into the spectrum of viewpoints that are grouped under the concept of theistic evolution."

"Again, it was to the dismay of macroevolutionists to find the markings of water associated with the sedimentary rock layers. The first premise for macroevolution was that Lyell was right and that the rock layers were gradually deposited over long periods of time. Once it was shown that each rock layer was actually deposited very quickly via the action of water, then that was blown away.

Now the rock layers represent catastrophism. So now macroevolutionists have to suggest that multiple catastrophes happened. The YEC continues, as always, to say that the layers are the record of one world-wide flood."

Radar . . . I swear to you, you've been misled about what modern geology actually says, whether by creationist sources or whatever. Water being associated with sedimentary rock layers is oh so not a problem for geologists, anymore than plants being associated with sunshine is a problem for the botanist. While it's certainly recognized that catastrophic events - earthquakes, volcano eruptions, breaking of glacial dams and other kinds of local to regional flooding (man, that must have been a sight, watching the Mediterrean fill!!), meteorite impacts, etc. - have happened in the past, leaving traces in the geological record, most of the settings for sediment deposition sound about as fast-paced and exciting as Al Gore giving a multimedia presentation on global warming. In slow motion.

Try here and here - I'll try to find more, I just grabbed these . . .

-Dan S.