Evidence for an ancient earth

[Altfish]

I did not indicate that, no. Merely that current geology has some issues that are not yet resolved.

Of course it does.

That's why we have research establishments working on it, getting better answers but it is 2000 years more advanced that any religious text.

 

[Polymath257]

Don't twist my words, please. I wrote regarding punctuated equilbrium, which punches holes in SLOW evolution, not evolution.

This depends on what you mean by the term 'slow'. PuncEq describes long periods where species are close to static and relatively brief periods where larger change happens. The key word here is *relatively*. What Gould and Eldridge found was the genus level changes can happen over periods of 50,000 years as opposed to the millions thought necessary before that. They did NOT find that level of change to happen in the course of only a few generations (say, less than 10). So, while changes happening in 50,000 years are 'rapid' with respect to millions of years, they are NOT rapid when considered on the time scale of human civilization.

 

[Sapiens]

I would respond that the YECs (and others, including secular scientists) have poked enough holes in Evolution to make the alternatives plausible (creation or space seed).

I would say that a geologic section of ROCK layers might not be overturned by a lot of water.

It should be noted that "space seed" theories make no change in the process of evolution, they merely rewrite the location of the origin.

Punctuated equilibrium does no violence to the TOE, it is in point of fact, a rather esoteric issue concerning rates of evolution hijacked by unknowing creationists who thought (in their utter ignorance) that it somehow was critical of the TOE in a general sense. Here's a flash for you: it is not and it is (IMHO) a rather obvious first corollary to mathematical ecology's niche theory.

 

[gnostic]

It should be noted that "space seed" theories make no change in the process of evolution, they merely rewrite the location of the origin.

Punctuated equilibrium does no violence to the TOE, it is in point of fact, a rather esoteric issue concerning rates of evolution hijacked by unknowing creationists who though (in their utter ignorance) that it somehow was critical of the TOE in a general sense. Here's a flash for you: it is not and it is (IMHO) a rather obvious first corollary to mathematical ecology's niche theory.

That's the problem with most creationists.

They take the theory of evolution to include abiogenesis, whether it occurring and starting here on Earth or from the "space seed".

Evolution doesn't rely on any origin of "first life" into account, just changes that could occur in the line(s) of common ancestry, whether it be through mutation or natural selection. The phenomena to Evolution is just understanding of biology, through very natural mechanism of passing genes through hereditary and reproduction, and not by some magical beings producing humans from clay or soil as they do in the Genesis myth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The book and website are terrible science. There are in reality no conflicts nor anomalies in the factual evidence of forming of the strata and the erosion involved. The scientist definitely do know how the Grand Canyon formed.

Actually, plate tectonics only explains part of the history of the Grand Canyon. Sedimentology, and Geomorphology (my specialty) explain the origin of the strata of the Grand Canyon, which extends throughout the region around the Grand Canyon. The strata includes, windblown sediments, ancient erosion surfaces, volcanic deposits, limestone deposits, and ocean sediments, nothing here can be explained in terms of a cataclysmic flood deposition.

The river pattern cutting through the strata shows a meandering river pattern with oxbows, which do not form in conditions of cataclysmic flooding and can only form by a river cutting down through the strata when the uplift began increasing the rate of cutting by the river. Cataclysmic flooding and erosion that occur in places like Mount Saint Helena do not show this meandering river pattern.

I read the complete book some years ago, including appendices. I doubt that you read it before making a sweeping statement like "The book and website are terrible science."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Regardless, which secular scientists 'punctuated equilbrium, which punches holes in SLOW evolution,'

In other words, which secular scientist have any objection to any part of evolution.

A key part of evolution is the accretion of gradual changes over time. A number of leading secular evolutionists have proposed extremely rapid evolution to account for the anomalies in paleontology and other studies--without giving any plausible mechanisms for this speed.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which have plenty of possible solutions.

Ciao

- viole

Please list some here.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, you are dead wrong.

Amen, amen.

That's not an answer or a refutation, that's merely a dismissal, one that you are not qualified to issue.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It should be noted that "space seed" theories make no change in the process of evolution, they merely rewrite the location of the origin.

Punctuated equilibrium does no violence to the TOE, it is in point of fact, a rather esoteric issue concerning rates of evolution hijacked by unknowing creationists who thought (in their utter ignorance) that it somehow was critical of the TOE in a general sense. Here's a flash for you: it is not and it is (IMHO) a rather obvious first corollary to mathematical ecology's niche theory.

I saw a paper just a few years ago with good news for you, then--it would only take 1,400 steps and 140,000 years to evolve an eye (not including connecting it to other tissue, interpreting its signals as brain ideas, etc.).

Evolutionists have had the courts, the schools and the culture for nearly a century. Half of Americans believe in Creation. With good reason!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I wouldn't recommend you telling a geologist that as it is done by them all the time. Much like flatter areas, stratigraphy still is evident in mountainous areas.

If you are familiar with their work, you must also be conversant with the numberless anomalies in stratigraphic layers when digs are done worldwide.

99% of fossils are marine life--much it found as high as the Himalayas, coincident with Flood theory.

 

[Sapiens]

That's not an answer or a refutation, that's merely a dismissal, one that you are not qualified to issue.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, thus a dismissal is all it deserves, and I am quite qualified to issue it. But then, so is anyone who opened his eyes while hiking in the mountains.

 

[Sapiens]

If you are familiar with their work, you must also be conversant with the numberless anomalies in stratigraphic layers when digs are done worldwide.

99% of fossils are marine life--much it found as high as the Himalayas, coincident with Flood theory.

I guess you've never heard of uplift? It's a well know process, evidence of which is seen all over the world. All "anomalies" that I know of have been rather simply documented and explained.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course it does.

That's why we have research establishments working on it, getting better answers but it is 2000 years more advanced that any religious text.

That's a general statement you've made, referring to magical thinking (all things are answered by science; science will find all answers). It's also uninformed thinking (science exceeds the scriptures in all areas). It does not.

Science cannot tell us how long a murderer should spend in jail (metaphysics). Science cannot exist with a priori assumptions (truth exists, the law of noncontradiction and other logic laws, etc.)

Science is good at inductive observation but cannot be used to prove/disprove metaphysics/spirituality/God/logic/math.

Don't worship science, it's a false god.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This depends on what you mean by the term 'slow'. PuncEq describes long periods where species are close to static and relatively brief periods where larger change happens. The key word here is *relatively*. What Gould and Eldridge found was the genus level changes can happen over periods of 50,000 years as opposed to the millions thought necessary before that. They did NOT find that level of change to happen in the course of only a few generations (say, less than 10). So, while changes happening in 50,000 years are 'rapid' with respect to millions of years, they are NOT rapid when considered on the time scale of human civilization.

Please describe any 10th changes, then, shown in the flora and fauna of this world over the last 5,000 years...

 

[metis]

If you are familiar with their work, you must also be conversant with the numberless anomalies in stratigraphic layers when digs are done worldwide.

99% of fossils are marine life--much it found as high as the Himalayas, coincident with Flood theory.

Someone beat me to the punch, but let me just say that your response above clearly shows that this is a subject that you simply are not very familiar with. In physical anthropology, we cover the basics of this in our education even though it's not our area of specialization.

The Himalayas are "new" mountains, versus "old mountains" like the Appalachians, and many of these ranges are created by the rubbing and lifting of the edges of tectonic plates.

Also, when it comes to stratigraphy, disrupted layers are distinguishable by the fact that their lines of demarcation tend to disappear or become "blurred".

Do you really think that geologists are stupid people who don't know their own field?

 

[sayak83]

I read the complete book some years ago, including appendices. I doubt that you read it before making a sweeping statement like "The book and website are terrible science."

If you have read the book you should be able to provide cogent summaries of its main arguments and why both mine and shunyadragon's objections are without basis. You have done nothing of that kind. All you have done so far is posting links and brushing away criticisms made of regarding the content of those links. Neither have you posted any refutation regarding any positive evidence of ancient earth that I and others have presented. Why is this?

 

[shunyadragon]

A key part of evolution is the accretion of gradual changes over time. A number of leading secular evolutionists have proposed extremely rapid evolution to account for the anomalies in paleontology and other studies--without giving any plausible mechanisms for this speed.

Without specific references as what is the problem with specific cases for fast evolution is in these claims, this is a canard. The extremely rapid evolution is still in terms of hundreds of thousands of years if not a million out of the whole history of life which is billions of years.

Yes, the mechanisms are given concerning the periods of rapid evolution. The periods of evolution that may occur faster are when there are ideal conditions that encourage a diversity of varieties and sub-species, such as in today's tropical rain forests. The evolution of horse is an example of rapid evolution documented by the fossils showing a diversity of anatomical features within species, and many closely related species existing at the same time.

You have failed to respond to some key questions to back up your claims in previous posts, The problem is you are making these claims based on a religious agenda without a good academic foundation for understanding the science of evolution.

Concerning the book and the website, I gave a specific response with a reference concerning the the false claim of the missing delta of the Colorado River, Like all large rivers in history there is often more that one delta for the river.

 

[Sapiens]

A key part of evolution is the accretion of gradual changes over time. A number of leading secular evolutionists have proposed extremely rapid evolution to account for the anomalies in paleontology and other studies--without giving any plausible mechanisms for this speed.

Full blown speciation has been show to occur instantaneously in plants and in some invertebrates. Classical Darwinian allopatric speciation has occurred, at least twice, in just decades (e.g., Italian wall lizard and Nereis acuminata [see: Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution 46:1214-1220.]) Rates of evolution are not constant (though there may be a "base" rate due to things such as genetic drift) but, rather, are a function of the degree of allopatry and the available niche space.
See more: Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

 

[gnostic]

If you are familiar with their work, you must also be conversant with the numberless anomalies in stratigraphic layers when digs are done worldwide.

99% of fossils are marine life--much it found as high as the Himalayas, coincident with Flood theory.

You are completely ignoring that those "marine fossils" are over 30 million years old.

A jawbone of a whale was found in the Himalayas, and that was dated just over 53 million years old. Other marine fossils showed that some up dated even earlier than the whale jawbone, while others are dated to before 30 million years.

The date all predated the 3rd millennium BCE Bronze Age.

And the estimation of time to the Genesis date, using the Masoretic Text (Hebrew Tanakh or what Christians called the Old Testament) put it within the 2nd half of 3rd millennium BCE - meaning between 2499 and 2000 BCE.

I don't think those marine fossils on the Himalayas meet with date to the Genesis flood. The Himalayas may be younger than other ancient mountains, but they are not that young.

The Indian tectonic plate is still pushing into Asian plate, so the uplifting and folding is still causing the mountain to rise 5 mm per year.

Multiplying 5 mm with 4500 years, you would get 22,500 mm, which is 22.5 metres. So in 2500 BCE, Everest would be at 8826 m high, 22.5 m shorter than today's 8848 m.

So the Himalayas, including Everest, were still "very high" highland. The water in Genesis Flood would have to be over 8830 metres, so where would all that water come from, and where did the water go afterward?

Can you provide evidences or cite scientific (preferably peer-reviewed) sources that these fossils are less than 4500 years old?

 

[shunyadragon]

Please describe any 10th changes, then, shown in the flora and fauna of this world over the last 5,000 years...

Please explain 10th changes. 5,000 years does not represent any significant time in terms of 100,000 years or more even in what is described as rapid evolution.

Still waiting for you to respond to my questions and specific references . . .