Evolutionary Theory, Creationism, Panspermia, Simulation Hypothesis? What say you? Any

[Daylight63]

As for scientific consensus, I don't accept it without verification, Personally, I see it as intellectual laziness.

That is admirable. And please accept this without offense but you clearly have not spent any time learning even basic aspects of the relevant science. You clearly come to the debate armed only with the standard issue YEC debate points.

This is not a "hit" on you by any stretch. It is quite common. But you have expressed an interest in "verifying" the scientific consensus. So I challenge you to actually read some of the science.

There are a large number of easy-to-access and approachable resources available.

Also, I've often noticed that evolution theory advocates often act superior, yet their arrogance is seldom earned. I expect to see a lot of that here. Should we exchange transcripts? Nobody 'knows' any 'theory' is absolutely true.

You expend far too much time on this sort of point. Abandon this shit and we can all talk about the science. Your attitude is pretty haughty if I might add and it doesn't even have the benefit of ANY scientific background.

In order for you to "verify" the scientific consensus you will have to have a bit of humility in the face of science you clearly have never even read the basics in.

So let's stop with this "who's insulting me now?" game. It's beneath the conversation.

 

[Cypress]

Regarding fossilization, scientists estimate that the Grand Canyon's sedimentary layers accumulated at a rate of about 0.1 mm/year to a maximum of 5cm/year. If this rate were consistent over millions of years, shouldn't we expect to find nearly every variation of every creature that evolved through mutations during that time?

Sedimentary deposition is frequently interrupted by periods of erosion and non-deposition depending on local conditions, which means you never get a complete fossil record spanning hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Cypress]

No it's not. The rocks had to have been solidified first and then bent (if you want to test this hypothesis go outside and make a flat "pancake" of sand and see if you can fold it like in the picture. It won't work.

I can't stress this enough: flooding deposits would be very different from calm-water deposits. We CAN TELL a LOT about the conditions of deposition and a geologist would easily be able to tell if this is a giant flood formation vs what it actually is.



Fossilization is not guaranteed for all dead animals. But to your point: yes we DO find almost every variation of creatures if we look in the fossil record. We see them CHANGE OVER TIME. We can actually date rocks based on what form various shells have taken. This is the power of evolution in geology.



I am pretty sure I already described fossilization in some degree of detail in the post above. I'll let you re-read that bit.



Then why don't we see a rapid depopulation (as in EVERY LIFE FORM ON EARTH except for what fit on the Ark). Every animal alive at that time across the globe would be dead. That would leave a layer of MASSIVE DIE OFF the earth over.

We DO HAVE EVIDENCE OF SIMILAR EVENTS: KT boundary (dinosaurs wiped out), End Permian Extinction, etc.

So it is incumbent upon you to explain why we don't see:

1. MASSIVE layer of all animals killed (even fishes presumably but it is unclear how) SIMULTANEOUSLY and INSTANTANEOUSLY in the rock record ACROSS THE GLOBE within the time of recorded history (in order for the flood of which you speak to be the one we are talking about)

2. Years of deposition across the globe with literaly NO LIFE ANYWHERE IN THEM. None. As living creatures re-populated the earth away from Mt Ararat.


Right now there's ZERO evidence of a global flood like described in Genesis. Just none. There isn't even a HINT of evidence for it. IF such evidence existed it would be OBVIOUS.

Another thing to remember about the debate you are undertaking: GEOLOGISTS ABANDONED THE GLOBAL FLOOD HYPOTHESIS OVER A CENTURY AGO.

The only "geologists" who currently advocate for the Flood are limited to YEC Literalist Creationists with a clear and obvious biblical bias.

The flood in the Hebrew bible is a call back to an older Mesopotamian flood myth, which probably does represent an oral tradition about a major catastrophic flood event on the paleo Tigris-Euphrates river system, but it certainly wasn't a global flood event.

 

[Daylight63]

The flood in the Hebrew bible is a call back to an older Mesopotamian flood myth, which probably does represent an oral tradition about a major catastrophic flood event on the paleo Tigris-Euphrates river system, but it certainly wasn't a global flood event.

DEFINITELY! And flood stories also show up in various other ancient societies' stories. It is an excellent metaphor for rebirth and renewal and localized floods would certainly be EXTREMELY impactful events to early societies. I can definitely see why the flood narrative like in Gilgamesh and Genesis show up as they do.

 

[Into the Night]

Evolutionary biology has been an active area of research and has been interrogated for a century and a half.

We've learned Darwin was wrong about some things, but the basic idea of descent with modification by natural selection has repeatedly stood the test of time and is supported by multiple lines of evidence.

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. It creates a paradox, and there are plenty of critters around that are NOT ideally suited for their environment.

Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution. That was created in ancient Greece and in Asia.

 

[Into the Night]

That is admirable. And please accept this without offense but you clearly have not spent any time learning even basic aspects of the relevant science. You clearly come to the debate armed only with the standard issue YEC debate points.

This is not a "hit" on you by any stretch. It is quite common. But you have expressed an interest in "verifying" the scientific consensus. So I challenge you to actually read some of the science.

There are a large number of easy-to-access and approachable resources available.





You expend far too much time on this sort of point. Abandon this shit and we can all talk about the science. Your attitude is pretty haughty if I might add and it doesn't even have the benefit of ANY scientific background.

In order for you to "verify" the scientific consensus you will have to have a bit of humility in the face of science you clearly have never even read the basics in.

So let's stop with this "who's insulting me now?" game. It's beneath the conversation.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. It's a fundamentalist style religion.
You deny several theories of science, Dimlight.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science has no politics. Science has no religion. It is completely atheistic.

 

[Daylight63]

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. It's a fundamentalist style religion.
You deny several theories of science, Dimlight.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science has no politics. Science has no religion. It is completely atheistic.

Just go away for a bit, please. You really literally ruin EVERYTHING you touch on here.

Go play with yourself for a while. Let us have a legitimate conversation without your usual BULLSHIT. Please? Just once?

 

[Cypress]

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection has been falsified. It creates a paradox, and there are plenty of critters around that are NOT ideally suited for their environment.

It was never falsified. But it took decades to understand Darwin only had part of the answer, because natural selection does not explain all descent with modification. Natural selection has to be supplemented by sexual selection, gene flow, and genetic drift (let the frantic Googling begin).

Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution.

Nobody said he did, Trump dummy. Darwin, and to some extent Wallace, were recognized for their mechanism to explain evolution. Lamarck had his own mechanism to explain evolution decades before Darwin but Lamarck turned out to be wrong (let the frantic Googling begin).

 

[Into the Night]

Just go away for a bit, please.

No.

You really literally ruin EVERYTHING you touch on here.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE, DIMLIGHT!

 

[Into the Night]

It was never falsified.

Yes it was, for the reasons I just gave. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

But it took decades to understand Darwin only had part of the answer,

Complexity fallacy.

because natural selection does not explain all descent with modification.

It is therefore falsified.

Natural selection has to be supplemented by sexual selection, gene flow, and genetic drift (let the frantic Googling begin).

Darwin didn't have Google. Void reference fallacy.

Nobody said he did, Trump dummy. Darwin, and to some extent Wallace, were recognized for their mechanism to explain evolution.

YOU did. Don't try to deny your own posts!
That theory has been falsified, for the reasons I already gave.

Lamarck had his own mechanism to explain evolution decades before Darwin but Lamarck turned out to be wrong (let the frantic Googling begin).

Darwin is not Lamarck, Sybil.

 

[Hume]

I did not have a religious upbringing, but like most people, that didn't mean I was any less interested in our origins. My interest has ebbed and flowed over the years, sometimes bordering on obsession. I believe this is a common experience for many.

Everywhere I turned, evolution seemed to be the prevailing narrative, overshadowing the Biblical accounts that had dominated human history for so long. Many argue that recent scientific advancements have discredited Genesis, elevating evolution to the status of 'fact.' With various dating methods, evidence from dinosaurs, and the fossil record, evolutionists seem to believe that the only debate left is just how misguided believers truly are. They speak as though they've got it all figured out, but they don't. This leads me to one of my pet peeves: about 30 years ago, every documentary or Hollywood scientist seemed to drop the word "theory." Regardless of one's beliefs, for many reasons, I think all belief systems are still very much 100% theoretical.

"We know the Earth is over 4 billion years old," "Dinosaurs were extinct 60-70 million years before humans walked the Earth," "The first frogs appeared 350 million years ago"—these claims are made with such confidence, discussing the six evolutionary changes over 275 million years that have led to the modern frog, which has been hopping around the planet for the last 66 million years. The assumption that we have complete fossil records of all these variations, neatly laid out in strata, is easy to make when the word 'theory' is omitted. Many people think that if something is stated as fact, it must have been thoroughly examined by objective scientists. Most don't want to be thought of as naive or uninformed, so it's safest to agree with the prevailing scientific consensus. However, the dirty little secret is that scientific 'facts' often rely on a small amount of evidence supplemented by numerous computer models and assumptions.

To this day, I ponder our origins with a healthy dose of skepticism. In my view, there seems to be much more evidence supporting the concept of an intelligent designer than the notion that we evolved from a single-celled organism in some primordial soup, perhaps delivered by a comet, into every living thing on Earth through random mutations over billions of years. Frankly, this idea always seemed more far-fetched than even the beliefs of the 'Paleo-SETI' proponents.

I'd love to hear what others believe or don't believe, especially if there is conclusive evidence that truly elevates evolution or any origin theory to factual status. Out of interest, here are a few notable scientists who have believed in creationism and the literal account of our origins in Genesis. Some are still living today, while others date back to the 16th century

Isaac Newton (1643-1727): Often considered one of the greatest scientists of all time, Newton was deeply religious and spent more time on theological studies than on science. He believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible and saw his scientific work as understanding "God's thoughts after Him."​

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): A French chemist and microbiologist, Pasteur was known for his work in microbiology, including the disproof of spontaneous generation. He was a strong opponent of evolution and believed in a creator, with his scientific findings supporting the idea that life comes from life.​

​

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): An astronomer and mathematician, Kepler was a proponent of the idea that the universe was designed by an intelligent Creator, which guided his research into the laws of planetary motion.​

​

Michael Faraday (1791-1867): A pioneer in electricity and magnetism, Faraday was also a devout Christian who saw his scientific discoveries as revealing the orderliness of God's creation.​

​

Henry Morris (1918-2006): Often called the "father of modern creation science," Morris co-authored "The Genesis Flood," which significantly influenced the modern creationist movement.​

​

Duane Gish (1921-2013): A biochemist who was a prominent advocate for creation science, he was known for his debates with evolutionists, promoting young Earth creationism​

Where did you copy that from?

 

[Tobytone]

Sedimentary deposition is frequently interrupted by periods of erosion and non-deposition depending on local conditions, which means you never get a complete fossil record spanning hundreds of millions of years.

Thanks again for your comments. For now, I'd like to focus on the Grand Canyon's geology and see if I can come to different conclusions other than the rapid burial theory I'm stuck on now. Given your point about sedimentary deposition often being interrupted by erosion or nondeposition, isn't it puzzling that we don't see more evidence of the slow rate of burial currently accepted by most scientists? Wouldn't there be channeling, small variations in surface rocks, or even hints of dunes and elevation changes in at least some of the layers? These expected variations are only found in the very lowest layers, indicating their existence prior to flooding. Doesn't this, along with the vast number of marine like creatures with such detailed preservation in these strata, suggest rapid sedimentation and burial? I'm asking if you would agree in the absence of any prior dating predictions, based on appearance only?

 

[Tobytone]

Where did you copy that from?

From my brain. lol No copying I promise. I generally have thoughts and then I write them down.

 

[Hume]

From my brain. lol No copying I promise. I generally have thoughts and then I write them down.

ok

 

[Daylight63]

Thanks again for your comments. For now, I'd like to focus on the Grand Canyon's geology and see if I can come to different conclusions other than the rapid burial theory I'm stuck on now.

Let's talk about the actual ROCK LAYERS (Stratigraphy) of the Grand Canyon. Let's look at the picture here:

I've circled some important things for you to explain using your "rapid burial" hypothesis:

1. Look at the red circle with the arrow pointing at it. How would a flood rapidly form layers of INTERMIXED sediments like SHALES (which require relatively CALM WATER to deposit in) AND VOLCANIC ROCKS (Basalt)? And then have another layer of SHALE (Galeros Fm) that, again, would require CALM WATER TO DEPOSIT?

2. The other red circles are around massive SHALES. Shale is made up of CLAY MINERALS which are usually very small and flat like a chip. They take a VERY long time to settle out of standing water. Back in the day when we wanted to put clay in a piece of equipment called an XRD (x-ray diffractometer, which can measure key features of clay minerals) we would first suspend the clays in a beaker of water and leave it set undisturbed for many days to get the clay to lay down on the bottom of the beaker. Now imagine doing that in a LARGE BODY OF WATER and collecting TENS OF FEET of thickness of this stuff.

3. If this were a flood (very chaotic) how to the various layers remain SO VERY WELL SEPARATED and FLAT.

For the time being we'll set aside the fact that flood deposits leave very specific types of depositional features which are absent here, but let's just focus on what we have here and see if your version of physics can explain it.

 

[Daylight63]

From my brain. lol No copying I promise. I generally have thoughts and then I write them down.

Never mind that poster. They are only here to derail the thread. They also like to tell people to "kill themselves". This poster has....issues.

 

[Tobytone]

ok

Should I be flattered by your assumption that I copied it? lI thank you for the compliment even if unintended.

 

[Hume]

Should I be flattered by your assumption that I copied it? lI thank you for the compliment even if unintended.

Most people on this forum post text without citing it.

 

[Tobytone]

Let's talk about the actual ROCK LAYERS (Stratigraphy) of the Grand Canyon. Let's look at the picture here:

I've circled some important things for you to explain using your "rapid burial" hypothesis:

1. Look at the red circle with the arrow pointing at it. How would a flood rapidly form layers of INTERMIXED sediments like SHALES (which require relatively CALM WATER to deposit in) AND VOLCANIC ROCKS (Basalt)? And then have another layer of SHALE (Galeros Fm) that, again, would require CALM WATER TO DEPOSIT?

2. The other red circles are around massive SHALES. Shale is made up of CLAY MINERALS which are usually very small and flat like a chip. They take a VERY long time to settle out of standing water. Back in the day when we wanted to put clay in a piece of equipment called an XRD (x-ray diffractometer, which can measure key features of clay minerals) we would first suspend the clays in a beaker of water and leave it set undisturbed for many days to get the clay to lay down on the bottom of the beaker. Now imagine doing that in a LARGE BODY OF WATER and collecting TENS OF FEET of thickness of this stuff.

3. If this were a flood (very chaotic) how to the various layers remain SO VERY WELL SEPARATED and FLAT.

For the time being we'll set aside the fact that flood deposits leave very specific types of depositional features which are absent here, but let's just focus on what we have here and see if your version of physics can explain it.

Appreciated, not being a wise ass but I will attempt to save you a little time in future comments, I don't propose to have full knowledge of the relevant sciences, but I do have a decent knowledge of geology, chemistry and biology, unless you'd rather include definitions and explanations for others that may be reading I'll be fine without it and if you go over my head, I'll look it up.
Anyways, I'll give you this to consider. A flood that resemble the biblical account was indeed catastrophic in many different ways but there is the initial storm followed by 330 additional days of slowly receding waters.

 

[Daylight63]

Appreciated, not being a wise ass but I will attempt to save you a little time in future comments, I don't propose to have full knowledge of the relevant sciences, but I do have a decent knowledge of geology, chemistry and biology, unless you'd rather include definitions and explanations for others that may be reading I'll be fine without it and if you go over my head, I'll look it up.
Anyways, I'll give you this to consider. A flood that resemble the biblical account was indeed catastrophic in many different ways but there is the initial storm followed by 330 additional days of slowly receding waters.

If you cannot utilize your "hypothesis" of the flood to explain the geology you wished to limit the conversation to, then why do you have that hypothesis?