Evolution vs. intelligent design: The debate continues

[Johnny]

You are thinking about small ideas, not big ones.

No, I'm thinking about big ideas. Do you think big theories go quietly into the night? Hah! Let's be serious. You even said yourself that they do not. One of the first things that must happen for an old theory to die is to show why it is inadequate. So your claim that no one goes back and looks at papers to determine why they are wrong is utter tripe. It's dishonest rhetoric.

At that point in time it was not known that sedimentary layers were as distinct and so widespread as we know today.

No, actually it was. Do some reading on the subject. People began to notice that the same organisms could be found in the same layers over vastly different areas. In fact, they began to notice you could even predict which organisms would be in which layers even if you had never been there or studied the layering.

Now we know better. But ideas once widespread die hard. Even dumb ones.

Which is why you still have an audience. Geologists have a multitude of evidence for the age of the layers from a variety of different fields all of which support each other. But of course, creationists have not stopped short of trampling all over geology, chemistry, biology, and physics in their pseudoscientific crusade.

 

[Spenser]

It is very simple: you can't get distinct layering that continues over wide expanses using a process that supposedly takes millions of years.

Since this is how geologists attempt to explain what we see in the geological record their fairytales aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

Wow, the power of your assertion is overwhelming! :nono: So when you going to pick up your Nobel?

 

[Spenser]

Johnny. It is not necessary to refute the thousands of claims geologists make in the journals.

Not when you could just plug your ears and assert they are all wrong.

What happens in science when a new theory replaces an old one? Does anyone ever bother to go back and examine all the papers that were written in an effort to determine where they went wrong? Of course not. They are simply forgotten whenever the main premise is refuted and replaced by a new guiding paradigm.

Strange that the theories aren't being replaced though huh? My girl friend is presently a geology major and they seem to be teaching her the same stuff they taught me, just like they are doing in all accredited universities.

The distinct layers of sedimentary material that extend over vast distances were obviously laid down in a great global deluge. That is why the layers are distinct for heaven's sake. This is what happens in floods on a small scale, so it is obvious that this is what would happen if the scale of the flood was sufficiently large. :duh:

Quick playing chicken and define your terms. You were asked to be more specific in order to debate but all you've given is this tripe. What do you mean by distinct layers? How big are vast distances?

Floods on a small scale layer far differently from the geological layers (it seems) you are referring to, if you think otherwise back it up with some evidence. Assertion seems to be about all you are made of...

 

[Spenser]

For the Benefit of Lurkers

For the Benefit of Lurkers

bob b

Faunal Succession

The law of faunal succession holds that different strata contain particular types of fossilised flora and fauna, and that these fossil forms succeed each other in a specific and predictable order that can be identified over wide distances. A fossilised Neanderthal bone will never be found in the same stratum as a fossilised Tyrannosaurus rex, for example.

This principle, first identified during the early 19th century by the geologist William Smith, is of great importance in determining the relative age of rocks and strata. The fossil content of rocks can be correlated with the law of superposition to determine the sequence in which the rocks were laid down and over what period this took place.

The law of faunal succession is also of great importance to the theory of evolution, which predicts that archaic biological features and organisms will be succeeded in the fossil record by more complex versions. For instance, paleontologists investigating the evolution of birds predicted that feathers would first be seen in primitive forms on flightless predecessor organisms such as feathered dinosaurs. This is precisely what has been discovered in the fossil record: simple feathers, incapable of supporting flight, are succeeded by increasingly large and complex feathers.

Law of Superposition

The law of superposition is an axiom that forms one of the bases of the sciences of geology, archaeology, and other fields dealing with stratigraphy. In its plainest form, that is: layers of rock are arranged in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top, unless later processes disturb this arrangement. The law was first proposed in the 17th century by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.

Most interestingly they address this law and biblical mythology:

The Law of Superposition is widely used in creation science to refute geological scientific arguments on the age of the Earth, especially by reference to catastrophism forming turbidites (considered to be evidence of the Great Biblical Flood), which often show exceptions to simplistic applications of the Law of Superposition, specifically the typical conception of a fining up sequence. Such arguments are naturally fallacious, because Steno did not recognise fining up sequences, and the Law of Superposition has, (as all scientific laws have), been modified to take into account modern conceptions and increased knowledge of the natural world.

When combined with the related law of faunal succession, the law of superposition provides a very powerful tool for dating rocks and strata.

Further you may want to learn more about Stratigraphy before simply asserting all its findings false.

 

[Johnny]

To summarize:

Bob claim #1 - "What happens in science when a new theory replaces an old one? Does anyone ever bother to go back and examine all the papers that were written in an effort to determine where they went wrong? Of course not. They are simply forgotten whenever the main premise is refuted and replaced by a new guiding paradigm."
FALSE. Yes, people go back and examine why the old theory was wrong. This is the first step in the acceptance of a new theory.

Bob claim #2 - "The global flood idea was dropped because nobody could believe that so much water could ever be generated to cover the entire earth. At that point in time it was not known that sedimentary layers were as distinct and so widespread as we know today. So they opted for an idea that seemed, in light of what was then known, to be more plausible: slow accumulation over millions of years."
FALSE. It has been known for quite some time.

 

[noguru]

In response to Bob's previous posts:

Assertion seems to be about all you are made of...

Now you are catching on.

 

[bob b]

Strange that the theories aren't being replaced though huh? My girl friend is presently a geology major and they seem to be teaching her the same stuff they taught me, just like they are doing in all accredited universities.

Yes. This is why bad ideas can persist so long.

What do you mean by distinct layers? How big are vast distances?

Layers are distinct when they can be seen visually. Vast distances are hundreds to thousands of miles in extent.

Floods on a small scale layer far differently from the geological layers (it seems) you are referring to, if you think otherwise back it up with some evidence. Assertion seems to be about all you are made of...

Yes, a global flood is on a different scale than small river floods, but even small floods generate layering due primarily to hydrodynamic sorting.

 

[koban]

Yes. This is why bad ideas can persist so long.



Layers are distinct when they can be seen visually. Vast distances are hundreds to thousands of miles in extent.



Yes, a global flood is on a different scale than small river floods, but even small floods generate layering due primarily to hydrodynamic sorting.

How would a global flood generate alternating igneous and sedimentary layers?


Why would a global flood deposit different layers of the same composition spaced apart by layers of different composition?

 

[Real Sorceror]

Yes, a global flood is on a different scale than small river floods, but even small floods generate layering due primarily to hydrodynamic sorting.

Wouldnt that place all the big, heavy things on the bottom and small, light ones on top? That would hopplessly jumble the fossil record and it would look nothing like it does today.

 

[Real Sorceror]

How would a global flood generate alternating igneous and sedimentary layers?Why would a global flood deposit different layers of the same composition spaced apart by layers of different composition?

Exactly what I was trying to say

 

[bob b]

Wouldnt that place all the big, heavy things on the bottom and small, light ones on top? That would hopplessly jumble the fossil record and it would look nothing like it does today.

That is a very naive view of hydrodynamic sorting. If that were the case even small river floods would not generate the limited amount of layering that they do.

This view also naively assumes that all the layers were laid down rapidly all at once, and also ignores the fact that the flood lasted over a year and consisted of an era where the waters were slowly rising and another era where they were slowly receding.

Scientists are frequently surprised whenever an event occurs that had never before been observed. A global flood has of course never been recently observed, so exactly what it would do cannot be predicted in detail.

But one thing is sure: it would leave trillions of dead creatures entombed in the mud.

Sound familiar?

 

[koban]

That is a very naive view of hydrodynamic sorting. If that were the case even small river floods would not generate the limited amount of layering that they do.

This view also naively assumes that all the layers were laid down rapidly all at once, and also ignores the fact that the flood lasted over a year and consisted of an era where the waters were slowly rising and another era where they were slowly receding.

Scientists are frequently surprised whenever an event occurs that had never before been observed. A global flood has of course never been recently observed, so exactly what it would do cannot be predicted in detail.

But one thing is sure: it would leave trillions of dead creatures entombed in the mud.

Why would you think so? I live near a river/lake junction and most of the dead things, either aquatic or terrestrial, end up as floaters. It's very unusual to see a dead organism lying on the river/lake bottom.

 

[bob b]

Getting back to the subject of this thread, I am continually amazed at the vigor which atheists (and even some theistic evolutionists) exhibit in defending the bankrupt idea that copying errors created the fabulous designs being revealed every day by microbiologists and other scientists who study how lifeforms work in the here and now.

They are also intellectually dishonest in denying that there is any close relationship between evolution and abiogenesis. I am sure that they do this simply because it is becoming increasingly obvious that abiogenesis is a bankrupt idea that they do not wish to acknowledge.

 

[koban]

Getting back to the subject of post 88,

How would a global flood generate alternating igneous and sedimentary layers?

 

[bob b]

Getting back to the subject of post 88,

Start a new thread and I may comment on it.

 

[avatar382]

[quoteThey are also intellectually dishonest in denying that there is any close relationship between evolution and abiogenesis. I am sure that they do this simply because it is becoming increasingly obvious that abiogenesis is a bankrupt idea that they do not wish to acknowledge.[/quote]

Evolutionists deny a close relationship with abiogenesis because evolutionists tend to understand the theory of evolution.

Time to hit those Biology books again, Bob.

 

[bob b]

I think that was a rhetorical question. He was pointing out that what you seem to require as evidence for "macro" evolution is either highly unlikely or impossible. I believe you like this situation, because it means you never have to admit that there is strong evidence for the naturalistic explanation of origins.

On the contrary, it is evolutionists who like a situation where there can never be evidence that proves them wrong (since we haven't lived for billions of years )

 

[noguru]

I think that was a rhetorical question. He was pointing out that what you seem to require as evidence for "macro" evolution is either highly unlikely or impossible. I believe you like this situation, because it means you never have to admit that there is strong evidence for the naturalistic explanation of origins.

On the contrary, it is evolutionists who like a situation where there can never be evidence that proves them wrong (since we haven't lived for billions of years )

Notice the subtle but profound difference between what you and I posted. I mentioned strong evidence. You posted proves them wrong. The argument for ID is essentially an argument from incredulity. "The complexity of even a cell is so great that I cannot imagined how it happened through natural processes." This argument certainly does not prove the naturalistic explanation wrong for those who are still open to the idea. On the other hand it is strong evidence for ID to those who are already convinced that the naturalistic explanation is wrong.

 

[bob b]

Notice the subtle but profound difference between what you and I posted. I mentioned strong evidence. You posted proves them wrong. The argument for ID is essentially an argument from incredulity. "The complexity of even a cell is so great that I cannot imagined how it happened through natural processes." This argument certainly does not prove the naturalistic explanation wrong for those who are still open to the idea. On the other hand it is strong evidence for ID to those who are already convinced that the naturalistic explanation is wrong.

The "cell argument" has no effect on an evolutionist, because "evolution does not include abiogenesis".

 

[noguru]

The "cell argument" has no effect on an evolutionist, because "evolution does not include abiogenesis".

What is the "cell argument"? Why should it have an effect?