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

[Daylight63]

I've sent pictures of fossils with remarkably preserved details.

WHat, THIS picture?

Where is that from? I can't find it using Google Image Search. You will have to tell me exactly where this is from. This is by no means a "common fossil", certainly not at the Grand Canyon.

Here's the main land-life fossils you find at the Grand Canyon:

Fossils - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

Now one thing you're gonna gravitate to is the "Leaf" fossil. Yes, indeedy, that one would require rapid burial to preserve the features. Just to a point that it is kept away from oxygen and oxygen-breathing life forms. At that point it is at the mercy of anaerobic life which is going to get busy digesting it.

But the rest of the fossils? Yeah, pretty much just "hard parts" and "impressions" of things. Crinoids, brachiopods....you know....HARD SHELLS that don't need to be buried rapidly.

The only land animals they mention are just some "tracks" (technically called "ichnofossils") left by something walking in the mud and the aforementioned leaves and dragonfly in one of the formations (ie not in all of the formations)


At some point your hypothesis has to explain SOMETHING that normal geology can't explain. And so far virtually nothing is lining up with YEC thought.

 

[Daylight63]

I'll hold off on explaining my extensive experience with sediment collection at the bottom of large bodies of water, where deposition occurs much faster than you've suggested, and likely quicker than you'd anticipate without having done what I have.

Don't play coy. If you are going to claim to have been a geologist on an oil platform or doing work in deep sea drilling I'm going to have a LOT more questions of why you propose the things you do in regards to the Grand Canyon.

Also: Before you try to wow us with the rate of deposition remember you're going to have ultimately explain it all with Stoke's Law...not just pulling up a column of sediment from a drillstem.

 

[Tobytone]

Anyone have a different religion other than evolutionist? It's fun, but let's face it over 80% of the world population believe in God and that God created everything. I call it the religion of evolution because like any other belief system evolution requires faith to believe in. Please spare me the condesending statements like "I know because I know science and science overwhelmingly agrees with the obvious reality of evolution, it's evidence is just too massive to be wrong" is that about right? Sorry, way too many problems, even Darwin was aware of this and held on to the belief that future generations would find what he could not, proof. He was most troubled about the apparent jump from virtually 0 signs of living creatures to a massive explosion of life that included almost every category that exist today. This bothered him greatly, He rightly thougth there should be a vast numbers of failed experiments just below the Cambrian layer but there was nothing. Now we also know of the true complexity of the first life to show up in the fossil record and it also perplexes any scientist that willing to be honest. Today Darwin would be gobsmacked if he could've seen the deep dive into the mind boggling complexity of even the simplest life form we can do with

WHat, THIS picture?

Where is that from? I can't find it using Google Image Search. You will have to tell me exactly where this is from. This is by no means a "common fossil", certainly not at the Grand Canyon.

Here's the main land-life fossils you find at the Grand Canyon:

Fossils - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

Now one thing you're gonna gravitate to is the "Leaf" fossil. Yes, indeedy, that one would require rapid burial to preserve the features. Just to a point that it is kept away from oxygen and oxygen-breathing life forms. At that point it is at the mercy of anaerobic life which is going to get busy digesting it.

But the rest of the fossils? Yeah, pretty much just "hard parts" and "impressions" of things. Crinoids, brachiopods....you know....HARD SHELLS that don't need to be buried rapidly.

The only land animals they mention are just some "tracks" (technically called "ichnofossils") left by something walking in the mud and the aforementioned leaves and dragonfly in one of the formations (ie not in all of the formations)


At some point your hypothesis has to explain SOMETHING that normal geology can't explain. And so far virtually nothing is lining up with YEC thought.

I promise i will, i have to go away for a bit, not sure how late but I will for sure. just saw this and shooting out the door

 

[Tobytone]

Don't play coy. If you are going to claim to have been a geologist on an oil platform or doing work in deep sea drilling I'm going to have a LOT more questions of why you propose the things you do in regards to the Grand Canyon.

Also: Before you try to wow us with the rate of deposition remember you're going to have ultimately explain it all with Stoke's Law...not just pulling up a column of sediment from a drillstem.

LOL, I really wish we could continue this discussion over a drink at a bar or something; I've got a lot of questions. I've only run back home to grab my dog, and I might not make it back soon, but I promise to give you a full explanation about the location of the pictures and unveil the mystery. And no, it's not an oil rig, though I almost want to keep it a secret until you guess. I doubt you or anyone else would ever guess it. Here's a hint: it's no bullshit, and once I reveal it, you'll agree it gives me the experience to challenge your statement. I'll also mention that I haven't yet considered how to apply Stoke's law for the calculations, as there's more to consider that we haven't discussed yet. Anyway, looking forward to our next convo, but I've got to run again.

 

[Litmus]

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.

scientific concensus is a relatively lazy and bullshit concept that rarely means anything.

 

[Litmus]

Anyone have a different religion other than evolutionist? It's fun, but let's face it over 80% of the world population believe in God and that God created everything. I call it the religion of evolution because like any other belief system evolution requires faith to believe in. Please spare me the condesending statements like "I know because I know science and science overwhelmingly agrees with the obvious reality of evolution, it's evidence is just too massive to be wrong" is that about right? Sorry, way too many problems, even Darwin was aware of this and held on to the belief that future generations would find what he could not, proof. He was most troubled about the apparent jump from virtually 0 signs of living creatures to a massive explosion of life that included almost every category that exist today. This bothered him greatly, He rightly thougth there should be a vast numbers of failed experiments just below the Cambrian layer but there was nothing. Now we also know of the true complexity of the first life to show up in the fossil record and it also perplexes any scientist that willing to be honest. Today Darwin would be gobsmacked if he could've seen the deep dive into the mind boggling complexity of even the simplest life form we can do with

I promise i will, i have to go away for a bit, not sure how late but I will for sure. just saw this and shooting out the door

religions isnt' about science. it's about morality.

 

[Cypress]

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?

I'm not sure where you get the idea that scientists think all sediment deposition is slow and incremental. Submarine fans, deltas, sediment gravity flows can have relatively high deposition rates.

I don't see any big mystery about the fossils in the Paleozoic strata.

As far as I remember, the Paleozoic strata of the Grand Canyon are largely marine deposits which cannot be related to floods, which by definition happen on land.

The older rocks exposed at the bottom of the canyon are structurally deformed, and have nothing to do with floods.

 

[Daylight63]

scientific concensus is a relatively lazy and bullshit concept that rarely means anything.

While scientific consensus is not an indicator of a correct hypothesis; A CORRECT HYPOTHESIS WOULD BE EXPECTED TO DEVELOP A CONSENSUS AROUND IT.

As such your point is, as usual, incorrect.

 

[Daylight63]

LOL, I really wish we could continue this discussion over a drink at a bar or something; I've got a lot of questions. I've only run back home to grab my dog, and I might not make it back soon, but I promise to give you a full explanation about the location of the pictures and unveil the mystery. And no, it's not an oil rig, though I almost want to keep it a secret until you guess. I doubt you or anyone else would ever guess it. Here's a hint: it's no bullshit, and once I reveal it, you'll agree it gives me the experience to challenge your statement.

I am very intrigued now. Because in order for your statement to be true your job would have to be in an alternate reality where Stokes Law simply doesn't hold.

And I'm doubtful you are visiting from that alternate dimension.

 

[Litmus]

While scientific consensus is not an indicator of a correct hypothesis; A CORRECT HYPOTHESIS WOULD BE EXPECTED TO DEVELOP A CONSENSUS AROUND IT.

As such your point is, as usual, incorrect.

Unless big pharma uses its influence to control scientists, which it does, sellout nazi.

 

[Daylight63]

Unless big pharma uses its influence to control scientists, which it does, sellout nazi.

Am I a "sellout" because I bothered to pay attention in science class while you were busy masturbating to pictures of cryptids?

 

[Cypress]

Unless big pharma uses its influence to control scientists, which it does, sellout nazi.

Big pharma does not fund research in paleontology, geology, paleobiology, and stratigraphy, which are the topics of this thread.

 

[Litmus]

Big pharma does not fund research in paleontology, geology, paleobiology, and stratigraphy, which are the topics of this thread.

Big pharma does not fund research in paleontology, geology, paleobiology, and stratigraphy, which are the topics of this thread.

it's about scientific concensus, which is the same shit you fascists say about vaccines.

 

[Margot]

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​

Melchizedek-Files.com

 

[IBDaMann]

I did not have a religious upbringing, but like most people, that didn't mean I was any less interested in our origins

Today is your lucky day. I'm going to give you all the correct answers.

Before I begin, I want to address something you wrote:

This leads me to one of my pet peeves: about 30 years ago, every documentary or Hollywood scientist seemed to drop the word "theory."

I'm also going to drop the word "theory," as well as the words "Darwin's" and "of." I'm not going to write out "Darwin's theory of evolution" every time. I will simply write "Evolution", and you are to understand that to mean nothing other than Darwin's theory as supported in "On the Origin of Species."

Having gotten that out of the way, notice your use of the words "our origins," implying origins of life. That is your first mistake. Evolution has no place in a discussion on origins of life. Evolution explain the origins of species, i.e. the extinction of species and the emergence of others. Evolution is not, however, a theory of abiogenesis. Evolution begins with the assumption that life began at some point, and I believe this assumption is universally accepted, even by those who HATE Evolution for religious reasons. Whether one believes that life was created by Yahweh, or believes that life materialized from other dimensions or that life sprung from non-life, everyone universally accepts that life began at one point. That is where Evolution begins. Life came to be, and began changing/evolving.

Ergo, Evolution is totally compatible with most belief systems, with young-earth Christians being a notable exception. Evolution requires lengthy/vast time periods whereas young-earthism precludes lengthy/vast time periods.

Let's take a look at something ThatOwlCoward wrote:

The religionists have obviously had far too much influence on public school education if the OP really doubts that evolution is real, proven science.

ThatOwlCoward is a moron. Evolution is not science; it is a theory, but not a scientific theory. It can't be. Science predicts nature, which describes future effects given present causes (cause <--> effect). Science cannot speak to the past. No claims about the unobserved past
can rise above being mere speculation. The Big Bang, Evolution, the location of Jimmy Hoffa's grave, etc.. are all great theories, but they are not science. Of course, fans of any particular speculation about the past will tell you that it's settled science, and even tell you that they did assignments in the 5th grade plagiarized from Encyclopedia Britanica, but they would be greatly confused.

I did an assignment in 5th grade, on the evolution of the modern horse. I used the Encyclopedia Britannica that we had at home, and library books. Got an A on it.

One can see how the negligence of ThatOwlCoward's education system deprived her of the education and critical reasoning skills needed to be able to express rational political views and to effectively compete in a forum of ideas.

I think all belief systems are still very much 100% theoretical.

Of course. If they were science, they wouldn't be belief systems.

"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.

All of this is speculation, no matter how "certain" the individual making the claim might be.

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.

Don't conflate issues. Words are omitted for ease of writing. References to the "fossil record" however, are like warmizombie (Global Warming worshiper) references to "The Data." At this point you are witnessing speculation transformed into religion, with the worshiper pointing to his source of truth, e.g. Bible, Q'ran, etc. "The Bible says 'do unto others'," "the fossil record says that frogs didn't turn green until 12:17 a.m. on Wednesday, 117,634,449 years ago after a particularly heavy rain and strong gusts coming out of the east," etc..

Always remember, you can tell when religious faith is involved when the one preaching claims some sort of omniscience, with claims of knowing the unobserved past as one of the most prevalent omniscience fallacies. The Global Warming and Climate Change religions claim to know the earth's average global equilibrium temperature with zero margin of error, ocean level rise to infinite precision (2.2mm/year), average ocean level pH with no margin of error, and everything else about nature because devotion to the faith brings divine wisdom and knowledge.

Remember scientists can be religious. Warmizombies and climate lemmings are forever citing scientists among their clergy as confirmation that their faith is true. That logic implies that Christianity is confirmed because of those scientists who proclaim Christianity. Likewise, Islam is confirmed to be true. In fact, all the religions must therefore be true, all at the same time.

Let me know if you have any questions.

 

[IBDaMann]

I've never heard any reputable scientists say scientific theories are complete and comprehensive truths about reality.

What does that have to do with anything?

It might be that some laypersons misrepresent theories that way

... as incoherent gibberish?

We know that Newton's laws of motion don't work as you near the speed of light.

Velocity doesn't matter. The results will be the same. Read up on Relativity.

We know that Einstein's theory of relativity does not work at the quantum scale.

Correction: You don't understand Relativity.

2nd Correction: Einstein's theory of Relativity works always, everywhere and at every scale. You simply don't understand this.

We know there are still questions about evolution,

If you have questions, ask.

My two cents is this: any holy roller who says that established theories are dubious just because there are still some unanswered questions is exaggerating.

Your two cents aren't worth two cents. Any religious person is free to discard, deny, or accept any non-scientific theory, and Darwin's Evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific theories. You just happen to be an grown adult who doesn't even know what science is.

On the other hand, the layperson who claims well established theories have comprehensively established all facts and dispensed with all questions is also misrepresenting

Nobody says this.

 

[IBDaMann]

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're trying, I see that, and please accept this without offense, but you clearly don't fit the mold when it comes to science discussions. You are a good fit for touchy-feely-good discussions with Cypress that lack concrete semantics.

This is not a "hit" on you by any stretch. It is quite common. But you have expressed an interest in defending the nonexistent "scientific consensus" so I challenge you to actually learn some science before approaching the adults' table. There are a large number of easy-to-access and approachable resources available.

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 science background. In order for you to defend a scientific consensus that deosn't even exist, you will have to have a bit of humility in the face of science you clearly cannot quite grasp.

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

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm not sure what you"re referring to. You mentioned the need for slow moving or still waters for sediment to separate and I mentioned that was present in the flood story. I guess I was implying the longtime after the initial storm would have created the circumstances for the flat layering.

I hope you are paying attention here. Daylight63 is setting you up for Global Warming's most absurd fallacy. Let me give you a standard pitch and you tell me if you see any problems:

"You fucking Christians are so fucking stupid. You believe that a stupid "flood" occurred in which the ocean rose 15 cubits and extreme weather killed all life on the planet. That isn't even possible you stupid fuck. You should be devoting your energy to believing in Global Warming, and realizing that the ocean will rise 15 cubits over the next 30 years and extreme weather will kill all life on the planet."

 

[IBDaMann]

WHat, THIS picture?

Where is that from? I can't find it using Google Image Search. You will have to tell me exactly where this is from. This is by no means a "common fossil", certainly not at the Grand Canyon.

The government tried to bury it. Expect your phone to be tapped over the next few weeks.

 

[IBDaMann]

While scientific consensus is not an indicator of a correct hypothesis; A CORRECT HYPOTHESIS WOULD BE EXPECTED TO DEVELOP A CONSENSUS AROUND IT.

Completely false. As such your point is, as usual, incorrect. "Consensus" implies subjectivity and opinions. If a group of us are sitting around in a park and it starts raining on us, we don't form a consensus of belief that it is raining. It is simply objectively raining. This is to say that once you have science, there is no longer any such thing as a consensus, i.e. you have the science.