Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

A person has to understand the different sorts of environments. An environment can be almost purely erosive. In other words only erosion plays a role. A steep mountain slope is an example of that. Or one can be purely depositional. A deep ocean basin is an example of that.

Many environments can be a mix. Sedimentary rocks form in environments of net deposition over long periods of time. Due to the nature of deposits we can often see that there was no "shifting" over long periods of time. Times of erosion can be identified since it is far less even than deposition. It may take tin sections and a cross polarized microscope to see it, but those periods can be seen. And any "mixing" is usually visible to the naked eye.


One of my go to examples is the Green River Formation. It has millions of years of delicate annual deposits. Erosion and redeposition, which is how "shifting" would have to occur, would leave clear evidence behind. We do not see that evidence. The layers of the Green River Formation are on average only 0.18 mm thick. Multiply that by five million and you will have its rough thickness. Now there could even have been some erosion and deposition of those eroded sediments elsewhere. But that would only harm @YoursTrue arguments since we only see fine annual deposition. Her "shifting" could only make the deposits older. Since there is no sign of redeposition there.

Green River Formation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If one wants examples of such annual layers visible to the naked eye we have those too. The Castile Formation of western Texas and eastern New Mexico is an example of that. It has hundreds of thousands of annual salt deposits. Once again the burden of proof would be on her to show how they could have been formed by "shifting".

I was just reading a claim that I'll summarize as "it takes time for soil to turn things into fossils". This highlights one of the biggest problems in these discussions. The idea among creationists that they understand all these natural processes. Clearly, they haven't a clue about them. It is no wonder that the claims creationist use make little sense.

 

[Astrophile]

And yes -- again -- fish are still fish, regardless of the theory that they eventually evolved to become humans.

Some species of fish evolved into tetrapods. Others evolved into the species of fish that live in the present oceans. None of the species of fish that lived during the Middle Devonian (the time of the fish-tetrapod transition) are still in existence.

 

[John53]

It isn't. It is application of prior work, sound, repeatable principles and corroboration of unrelated methods and information.

Fossils are not alive and did not live anywhere. The animals and plants whose physical remains became fossilized did once live, but we have no proof of that. So, perhaps you should abandon this all-together.

No one is claiming that the findings of science are absolute. Well...except creationists of course. But that is not science. It is biased denial.

Different techniques corroborate each other. Other evidence corroborates the dating. And vice versa. No one has found any consistent means to refute the dating and demonstrate it all wrong.

Is there any evidence for this? It just sounds like some desperate ploy to keep your side of the debate alive and a poor attempt to wedge doubt, no matter how meaningless, into the debate. Doubt is built into science, but acceptance requires evidence.

You need to establish the relationship between soil and fossils that you claim exists. Mineralized fossils are not the only form of fossil, but they are essentially rock in a matrix of rock. Where does the soil come into this and what does it matter if it shifts above the rocks?

You have to show us that soil enters the rock and causes some sort of change to the fossils and the matrix for that matter.

Then you have to demonstrate that this change impacts dating in some way that gives false results.

You've done none of this. In typical fashion, you just repeat it over and over regardless of the input of others.

You are clearly not a geologist, geochemist or paleontologist, yet you consider your poorly informed opinion to be expertise in those fields. You pose these things as if they are a "gotcha moment" that no scientist ever conceived or followed up or more likely dismissed, given no evidence or reason to consider.


And no telling what, if anything that would mean here. The only evidence to go on is that you keep repeating something about it.

There is nothing in the Bible that would indicate that the days of creation are not literally 24 hour days. You've just decided to view that part metaphorically and the rest literally by some arbitrary standard of your own.

That verse in Peter is pretty slim evidence to conclude that an actual 24 hour day was not meant or was meant.

No, it is not obvious. You have to have some evidence to demonstrate that soil is that old, shifted during that span and that the soil and the shifting mean something in the context of fossils and the dating of them.

You are speaking that claim in the context of 200 years of accumulated evidence that supports evolution. You just ignore that as if it were nothing and that your personal claims should be accepted by default without any evidence at all to share with the group.

Now we are in the realm of the obvious.

Survival of the fittest is an outdated and poor description of natural selection. To say both in the same sense is a false dichotomy of sorts. Though, I think more out of ignorance of the subject then intent.

You are starting to loose coherence here. You seem to be indicating that you accept that fossils of feathered dinosaurs have been found and are known. If so, I agree.

So then, yes. I was correct that you accept that.

Again with the dichotomy. The evidence that you claim doesn't exist for evolution exists and the conclusion based on that evidence is that birds evolved from a dinosaur ancestry. You are just denying that in favor of your chosen ideology.

This has been explained to you so often it hardly bears repeating and is why I do not feel any compelling need to respond to you further. You just want to deny it for personal reasons and cannot provide anything substantial to support that denial other than what you have chosen for personal, subjective reasons to believe.

Again, something that has been explained to you ad nauseum and something that you will repeat ad nauseum despite the explanations.

Given that you have chosen to accept no evidence that challenges the literal view of what you have chosen to believe, I see no reason to continue a discussion that is going to be largely made up of incoherent responses and the repetition of claims about proof and fish remaining fish.

I will speak no further with you on this.

In reality, I would only need to close my front door to end the visit. Here, apparently, I have to be more explicit.

You're speaking logically, using evidence and being reasonable so let me predict that the next thing to happen will be you getting attacked as not being a "real" Christian.

 

[cladking]

Believers in science believe in All sorts of magic. An individual dies it's remains stay in one place a long time and presto, it is a fossil. In reality everything is continually changing and this even applies to the soil above fossils and the fossils themselves!

 

[YoursTrue]

Some species of fish evolved into tetrapods. Others evolved into the species of fish that live in the present oceans. None of the species of fish that lived during the Middle Devonian (the time of the fish-tetrapod transition) are still in existence.

Of course I don't think anyone can say any fish are still evolving into tetrapods because I guess scientists might say it just isn't necessary(?) for survival (of the fittest, I suppose). Simply no proof. Conjecture obviously, but -- no proof of it really happening per the process of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're speaking logically, using evidence and being reasonable so let me predict that the next thing to happen will be you getting attacked as not being a "real" Christian.

Some would consider themselves Christian because they like the personality, I suppose, as portrayed in the Bible of Jesus but probably say they don't know if he was born of a virgin, if he performed miracles, and if he was resurrected from the dead. Hmm? What do you say? Oh, and don't let me leave out that many would say Jesus fell for myths and may not have really existed, certainly not as portrayed. (Have a good one.)

 

[John53]

Some would consider themselves Christian because they like the personality, I suppose, as portrayed in the Bible of Jesus but probably say they don't know if he was born of a virgin, if he performed miracles, and if he was resurrected from the dead. Hmm? What do you say? Oh, and don't let me leave out that many would say Jesus fell for myths and may not have really existed, certainly not as portrayed. (Have a good one.)

I say I declare my prophecy fulfilled.

 

[YoursTrue]

I say I declare my prophecy fulfilled.

Amazing, truly. I say this with a smile on my face. Thank you and yours for being part of this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I say I declare my prophecy fulfilled.

Pretty much what I expected too. Once the fallacious, incoherent arguments have failed and been called on it, that seems the only card that is left for some to play. Some responses are just bad fruit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I say I declare my prophecy fulfilled.

Winner Frube!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I say I declare my prophecy fulfilled.

I can't imagine Christ using fallacious nonsense or encouraging others to use it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Pretty much what I expected too. Once the fallacious, incoherent arguments have failed and been called on it, that seems the only card that is left for some to play. Some responses are just bad fruit.

Pretty much what I expected too. Once the fallacious, incoherent arguments have failed and been called on it, that seems the only card that is left for some to play. Some responses are just bad fruit.

Nothing to call on. There are fossils, but as noted, they do not prove the theory of evolution. Now perhaps some people who claim to be of a religious belief or church think it's all a big myth. Sad, really. 2 Peter 1:9 - "For anyone lacking these things is blind, shutting his eyes to the light..."
The sad part about it is there is simply no proof that animals and plants evolved independently from single-celled eukaryotes. That is the sad part. No proof, yet many will simply mouth it as if it's true. That's the sad part I see from here.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can't imagine Christ using fallacious nonsense or encouraging others to use it.

you mean like the Flood and Noah's day?

 

[John53]

Winner Frube!

To be fair it was a one horse race, anyone could have picked that winner.

 

[exchemist]

Nothing to call on. There are fossils, but as noted, they do not prove the theory of evolution. Now perhaps some people who claim to be of a religious belief or church think it's all a big myth. Sad, really. 2 Peter 1:9 - "For anyone lacking these things is blind, shutting his eyes to the light..."
The sad part about it is there is simply no proof that animals and plants evolved independently from single-celled eukaryotes. That is the sad part. No proof, yet many will simply mouth it as if it's true. That's the sad part I see from here.

There is no proof on anything in science, but there is a mass of evidence that evolution took place in this way. Nor does it conflict with mainstream Christian belief at all.

Quote-mining sentences from the Epistles that concern entirely different subjects is dishonest. In fact, St. Peter was talking of the personal qualities needed by believers. These qualities, perhaps significantly, do not include ignorance, cultivated stupidity, or dishonesty.

 

[Audie]

Nothing to call on. There are fossils, but as noted, they do not prove the theory of evolution. Now perhaps some people who claim to be of a religious belief or church think it's all a big myth. Sad, really. 2 Peter 1:9 - "For anyone lacking these things is blind, shutting his eyes to the light..."
The sad part about it is there is simply no proof that animals and plants evolved independently from single-celled eukaryotes. That is the sad part. No proof, yet many will simply mouth it as if it's true. That's the sad part I see from here.

So you STILL have not learned there's
no proof in science but you think you
can offer lessons to educated people.

And find it sad that they do something you made up.

Verily an exemplar of "Christian" thought in action.

 

[Audie]

There is no proof on anything in science, but there is a mass of evidence that evolution took place in this way. Nor does it conflict with mainstream Christian belief at all.

Quote-mining sentences from the Epistles that concern entirely different subjects is dishonest. In fact, St. Peter was talking of the personal qualities needed by believers. These qualities, perhaps significantly, do not include ignorance, cultivated stupidity, or dishonesty.

Ignorance, cultivated stupidity and dishonesty are
not part of Christianity but are essentials to the
perverted form known as creationism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To be fair it was a one horse race, anyone could have picked that winner.

It was as close to absolute as it gets.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To be fair it was a one horse race, anyone could have picked that winner.

I find it encouraging that even the JW's consider the Flood as an actual event to be fallacious nonsense.

 

[wellwisher]

The way I resolve the conflict between evolution and creation is I believe the Bible is taking about a change in human conscious; brain's operation system, instead of mutation change into the first human DNA. Science tends to use DNA like a Swiss army knife and ignores the obvious implied by Darwin and natural selection.

When Adam is first formed, he was considered just below the Angels by being given will and choice. Evolution assumes natural selection, but it does not assume the impact of manmade selection, which is made possible with will and choice.

Once civilization formed and people started to live in large numbers in smaller fixed spaces, human selection began to tip the scales, since the social environment was no longer fully natural.

The Bible dates the rise of the willful human; Adam, about 6000 years ago, which is when the invention of written language allowed persistent civilizations. Written language allows memories to persist forever, thereby altering their natural forward integration of our memory. This meant the environment was no longer fully natural for natural selection of humans, and therefore natural selection longer 100% applied. Instead the addition of human selection criteria; written laws, caused a repressed morphing affect into a new type of consciousness for humans.

If you read the bible story of Cain and Abel, Abel was a herder of animals and Cain was a tiller of the soil; farmer. Cain kills Abel or faming supersedes migratory herding; natural selection is killed by manmade selection.

Cain is sent away, but before it goes, he is afraid and concerned that whomever shall come upon him will kill him. Who were these whomever, if there were only Adam, Eve and Cain at that time? Those three were the only three modern humans. The whomever were the majority of humans; based on DNA, that were still under instinct and natural selection. Both had human DNA, but only three had the new secondary center of consciousness; ego, needed for will and choice; between animal and angel.

From the story of Cain and Abel, and Abel being the herder of animals, I would infer that Adam and Eve could breed both the old and new human children, since they all shared human DNA, with the natural humans. Adam and Eve would have another son; Seth. Cain was sent away and would bred with the natural humans, to make children with a range of natural and manmade attributes. There are no longer any natural humans on earth for natural selection. Even isolated tribes are civilized by writing.

Today if you live in a large city does natural selection apply 100%? The rat race has it own rules. This began with the first civilizations. Will and Choice is the ability to override instinct, due to a part of us that became detached from natural instinct; ego.