Still waiting for a citation to the scientific literature discussing the New England sandstone in the Grand Canyon.
As to the rest of your post---not likely.
creation vs evolution
- Thread starter jason69
- Start date
Still waiting for a citation to the scientific literature discussing the New England sandstone in the Grand Canyon.
As to the rest of your post---not likely.
Now your source are "some parents of a college student". I have a bridge to sell.
It doesnt exist, I've tried to find it on the net but the world never heard of this claim?
Interplanner
Well-known member
The Farellian law of chance is 1:1 to the 50th power. In other words, impossibility. Most of evolutionary and uniformitarian essential doctrine's odds are worse than that.
Darwin meant to fortify racism by writing OS but that seems to have been forgotten.
The German mineralogist Werner (d. 1817) showed that everything geomorphological was explained by the Biblical cataclysm, which is mentioned in about 500 other cultures. This means that it was essentially racism that drove people to support evolution, not being able to counter Werner's geomorphology. Other than trying to ridicule the Bible for an event they thought referred to a lot of rain and high rivers, secular science has failed to counter the cataclysm.
Our friends in secular science might like to know that at the same time Hutton and Darwin were 'grounding' such racism, the evangelicals Wilberforce and Shaftesbury were bringing an end to the slave trade, ie, doing something practical to end racism. Hutton was the secular geologist of Werner's time, before Lyell. Evangelicals, you know, have a high view of the plain meaning of Genesis...
I think anyone who looks at Siccar Point, Scotland, needs to ask themselves if 300M years of grinding would look like that. It is fresh, recent, sharp, crisp. All you have to do is look at animal tracks fresh vs a week old to know that the 300M is a scam. Yet secular geologists keep trying to champion Siccar.
To illustrate how mindless modern science is, Tucker's GEOLOGY UNDERFOOT IN WESTERN WASHINGTON has a section comparing Beach 4 of Washington's Olympic peninsula Pacific coast to Siccar, and simply says that Hutton (the secular geologist of the early 1800s that Werner answered) was an obtuse writer ("unfortunately"), and that "others restated his ideas which were gradually accepted." p234-5. What a gloss. I know Tucker was not providing a complete history, but it treats this conflict as though nothing happened. And doesn't keep his favoritism out of it, by saying "unfortunately" about Hutton's writings.
Darwin meant to fortify racism by writing OS but that seems to have been forgotten.
The German mineralogist Werner (d. 1817) showed that everything geomorphological was explained by the Biblical cataclysm, which is mentioned in about 500 other cultures. This means that it was essentially racism that drove people to support evolution, not being able to counter Werner's geomorphology. Other than trying to ridicule the Bible for an event they thought referred to a lot of rain and high rivers, secular science has failed to counter the cataclysm.
Our friends in secular science might like to know that at the same time Hutton and Darwin were 'grounding' such racism, the evangelicals Wilberforce and Shaftesbury were bringing an end to the slave trade, ie, doing something practical to end racism. Hutton was the secular geologist of Werner's time, before Lyell. Evangelicals, you know, have a high view of the plain meaning of Genesis...
I think anyone who looks at Siccar Point, Scotland, needs to ask themselves if 300M years of grinding would look like that. It is fresh, recent, sharp, crisp. All you have to do is look at animal tracks fresh vs a week old to know that the 300M is a scam. Yet secular geologists keep trying to champion Siccar.
To illustrate how mindless modern science is, Tucker's GEOLOGY UNDERFOOT IN WESTERN WASHINGTON has a section comparing Beach 4 of Washington's Olympic peninsula Pacific coast to Siccar, and simply says that Hutton (the secular geologist of the early 1800s that Werner answered) was an obtuse writer ("unfortunately"), and that "others restated his ideas which were gradually accepted." p234-5. What a gloss. I know Tucker was not providing a complete history, but it treats this conflict as though nothing happened. And doesn't keep his favoritism out of it, by saying "unfortunately" about Hutton's writings.
Werner was incorrect. Especially since
there was no Biblical cataclysm.
As far as Hutton goes, I have read that his writing style was "obtuse". It has been call "heavy and obscure". But he was correct in that the evidence in the earth shows long ages.
And nice to see you continuing along with your Gish Gallop.
1. Farellian laws of chance?
2. the bs claim that Darwin wrote Origin to support racism.
3. Werner's plutonism, long since discredited
4. St. Wilburforce etc.
5. Literal Genesis
6. Siccar Point.
And yet I wait still for a citation to your claim that Grand Canyon sandstone came from New England. Note that I am not saying that would be impossible, but a citation to the literature that supported your claim would be of interest.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I recall there was a carefully worded response to this post but it is now missing and/or condensed to the 5 point outline called the 'Gish gallup.' I don't know who that is.
I hope to have time today to dig up the Conconino sources heard from Tai Walker, or Michael Oard, or John Baumgartner, or Emile Silvestru. Have company over, and new animals, and going to honor those who sacrificed for us.
I did notice that wiki has changed whatever Tucker found from the Biblical cataclysm to "Neptunism." However, I see that the similarity being explained is a transition from a total water surface to the present form. Interesting that he found it necessary to do so.
There's kind of no point in 'saving' Darwin from racist comments when the same principles went so far that way in Haeckl in Germany. Darwin resolved his oldest daughter's death by his 'fittest' doctrine, rather than his wife's view based on her Christian faith. But the Huxley who egged him on is even more of a scandal, wanting people to think that way (the fit must rule), rather than believe in a life guided by God's hand 'through many dangers, toils and snares.'
And what is the pejorative "St. Wilberforce" about? Do you also have issues with the American doctrine of 'endowed by Our Creator'?
Interplanner: Lets be clear, I think your understanding of basic science--geology or biology especially--is anemic. You pick and choose those who support your position but don't seem to be able to provide specifics, other than references to TV, NPR or some parents of a college student. There is value to the general scientific consensus and understanding. That consensus and understanding is that there was no world wide flood, the Grand Canyon was not formed by a world wide flood, the Cocconino sandstone did not come as a slurry from New England (although I have asked repeatedly for a citation).
This is not to say that there are times when the consensus gets successfully challenged---Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Wegener, etc have shaken things up. Wegener is a classic example--he postulated plate tectonics (he called it continental drift) in the early 1900's and was first laughed at but later Heezen and Tharp were able to find evidence of the mid ocean ridge and further research developed an understanding of the mechanism that allows a rational explanation of what was first thought impossible.
I'm not buying your explanation of how Darwin thought about his daughter's death. I don't think he used "survival of the fittest", I think he became disillusioned with the Christian deity who could allow this to happen.
This is not to say that there are times when the consensus gets successfully challenged---Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Wegener, etc have shaken things up. Wegener is a classic example--he postulated plate tectonics (he called it continental drift) in the early 1900's and was first laughed at but later Heezen and Tharp were able to find evidence of the mid ocean ridge and further research developed an understanding of the mechanism that allows a rational explanation of what was first thought impossible.
I'm not buying your explanation of how Darwin thought about his daughter's death. I don't think he used "survival of the fittest", I think he became disillusioned with the Christian deity who could allow this to happen.
There are at least two stories of creation: The Bible and Science. The Bible is printed on paper in nearly every language on Earth. It is easy to read.
Science requires reading God's own notes on the progress of creation written in His own hand writing in the substance of the Earth and other planets and the bodies of His creatures. Unfortunately you have to understand how science works to read God's notes. This is difficult so many don't bother.
Science requires reading God's own notes on the progress of creation written in His own hand writing in the substance of the Earth and other planets and the bodies of His creatures. Unfortunately you have to understand how science works to read God's notes. This is difficult so many don't bother.
6days
New member
Sealeaf said:
Science is not a story. Science is the pursuit of truth through observation and experiment.
Creation is the account of our beginnings. Science helps confirm the truth of the creation account in God's Word.
Common ancestry is the story that lucky mutations and millions of years can turn a frog into a handsome prince. Science helps confirm that this is just a fairy tale.
Greg Jennings
New member
I'm still baffled that you can't understand how mutational change would lead to positive effects in the long term. Bad mutations are eliminated when the less-than-average organism carrying them dies and doesn't have any babies. Good mutations are preserved when the more-fit-than-average organism carrying them survives and has a bunch of babies.
This isn't rocket science.
6days
New member
Greg Jennings said:
You seem to get baffled easily. .. perhaps that is why your beliefs don't align with science.
Greg Jennings said:
Yea Greg... we know that is what you believe, but it's just a belief.... and a false one.*
Lets use a lowball number of only 60 VSDM's added to our genome each generation. Geneticists all acknowledge these lead to increased genetic problems. In fact some geneticists have attempted to create various models to explain how we and other orgsnisms have survived within evolutionary time frames...and the varioys models oppose each other. (Some have called it the population bomb). Natural selection of course is incapable of detecting and removing these mutations in a population with a birthrate under 2. And...contrary to your anti-science beliefs, 'good mutations' are so rare they are never even factored into the various models / graphs secular geneticists create. The so called 'good mutation' has a beneficial outcome, but often is a result of a loss of genetic info. (Examples if you need). These so called beneficial mutations... might be as rare as one in a few hundred thousand VSDM's. One secular geneticist estimated it at 1 in 1,000,000
This isn't rocket science. Mutations corrupt pre-existing genetic information and systems.
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: My cat has a thumb. Odd that, yes? He also, on the other paw, has like 8 digits that aren't much use and a claw that comes out of his pad. However, he also has a thumb on that paw as well. Two thumbs and he can use them somewhat as opposable. Guess what? Gone next generation. He also has sabre teeth. Because of that, I'm pretty thinking the Sabre Cat was the offspring of a shallow gene pool, not a great thing. God can make a thing capable, but there is not 'reason' for eyes without 'reason/design.' Hence, evolution, without God and design is ridiculous. I'm shocked, frankly, that scientists don't think more about this. There is no reason I have teeth 'unless' there is a 'reason/design' I have teeth. There is no light sensitive observation, without a designed eyeball. NOTHING could cause it to happen sans design. :nono: The next generation of cats will NOT have thumbs.... unless someone with 'intelligence' is able to breed that INTO them (design). The problem is simply this: Scientists see millions of incredible designed things, and assume that anything alike, is without design. Every 'lab' experiment is 'design' as well, not evolution. Seeing millions of something does not mean lack of design, intelligence. I posit it cannot. There is no design without intelligence. My eyes, ears, and thumbs are 'designed.'
Nope
Greg Jennings
New member
It's like talking to a 3 year old with you.
It doesn't matter HOW RARE good mutations are IF THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES PRESERVED. Do you understand this?
Interplanner
Well-known member
JonahDog,
I needed to make sure I had the techical page or collection. It gets more technical than I can follow sometimes.
https://answersingenesis.org/search/?q=Coconino
Of course, there are secular catastrophists like Ager THE NEW CATASTROPHISM.
I needed to make sure I had the techical page or collection. It gets more technical than I can follow sometimes.
https://answersingenesis.org/search/?q=Coconino
Of course, there are secular catastrophists like Ager THE NEW CATASTROPHISM.
Interplanner
Well-known member
On mutations, I just heard a piece on symbiosis; example after example showed fundamental conflict with adaption toward the fittest.
Greg Jennings
New member
I'll just throw you an example.
A deer is born from a momma deer. He is normal in every single way, except he has better than average hearing and worse than average sight. His sibling is all normal.
One day when he is young, a huge volcano erupts and forces his mother, brother, and self to relocate to a new location, and other animals from the surrounding area as well. The volcano's ash blocks the sun a little, lessening visibility. Now, sight is no longer as important bc nobody can see that well anymore.
The momma deer continues to raise her babies, but the sibling of our baby deer gets picked off when he can't see a sneaky wolf coming for him. Our baby, with his superior hearing, laid low in the grass bc he heard the wolf from a long way away. Momma comes back and finds only one baby, which she raises to completion.
As an adult, the world around the deer is still darkened by ash blocking the sun. Visibility is still reduced. Therefore he is more fit to live in this new world than his "normal" kin. He will go on to live longer and have more babies, some of which will carry his hearing trait and themselves be better off.
Do you see how that works? That is just one generation (given, in a cataclysmic scenario that makes evolution more likely). There have been literally millions of generations.
This is a time scale that you and I really have no reference for. We can't relate to it. Nothing alive can. It's simply too much time.
PS: I doubt your cat can use his wild thumbs opposably, but it's still cool that he has that many digits
Greg Jennings
New member
IP,
I'm afraid that I have seen far too much ridiculousness from AiG to ever take them seriously. The organization is a fraud in every sense of the word, and really doesn't pretend to be much else when you examine their About page.
Ill let Jonahdog speak for himself, but if your only source on a Coconino sandstone slurry is AiG, then it didn't happen