Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all, I'm confident they can do much better than that. I'm talking about actual sedimentary layers, laid down within days in the valley below.

Again, not really sedimentary, volcanic which even though they were deposited

He asked if I thought geologists were so incompetent that they couldn't tell the difference between annual layers and Ash layers. I never said nor argued that. I do however believe they have no way of knowing for sure that all layers they see as annual layers, actually are annual layers. That's a huge assumption given that sedimentary layers have been demonstrated to have accrued rapidly. That was my argument, I apologize for not properly explaining my position.

Actually that was @Jose Fly , but it was still an incredibly poor argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I asked that.


What sedimentary layers that resemble annual layering in lake varves and ice cores are you thinking of?

The Mt. St. Helens ash is one layer, so I am a bit confused too. And technically a pyroclastic flow is not exactly sedimentary.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't see how evening, morning, and day 1 can be assumed symbolic.

Well, for starters, the earth and sun didn't until a few "days" in. Considering we measure a day by a full rotation of the earth on it's axis, and track it via the movement of the sun across the sky, we can assume that these early days likely didn't refer to literal 24-hour periods.

The whole book of Genesis is recorded history...

Uh huh. Care to provide any evidence of that?

Why would chapter 1 be different. Hebrew symbols and poetry can be found in Psalms and none of the chapters resemble Genesis in the least... Grammatically speaking.

If you believe Genesis is literally true, then we can already discount the entirety it.

 

[Polymath257]

I guess my next question would be, how did the laws originate. I assume since they are physical laws they have a beginning. If those laws don't come into existence randomly, you need a mechanism that forms them. If I'm correct in that assessment, what is their origin outside of randomness.

Why would you assume they have a beginning? That would imply there is a time when they are not operative, but time itself is part of those physical laws.

More to the point, the notion of causality is *one* of the physical laws (to the extent it is true---it isn't always). So to talk about a cause (beginning, origin) of the natural laws is self-contradictory.

What I would say is that the physical laws are coexistent with matter, energy, space, and time. And the spacetime structure simply exists--it isn't caused at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know why Gould had such a fixation on Haeceklel, but I have never seen any creationists able to find any sources that show that recapitulation was taught in schools. If that was the case you should be able to find that regardless of what Gould's beliefs were. That creationists cannot seem to find any should tell you something.

So besides the dubious claims of Gould in this matter (they do not appear to be able to be confirmed independently) what evidence do you have that recapitulation was taught? As I have repeatedly shown it was refuted by the 1920's. Why would scientists push a refuted idea? After all it was fellow scientists that refuted it, not creationists. Why would scientists refute an idea and then teach it? That makes no sense at all.

What I find so interesting is that few scientists discuss the problematic situations with Haeckel's theory, both in idea and visuals, yet anything someone says that is truthful about the situation is put down by people like you and then sometimes you declare, "well, that's from a creationist website," or something like that. Not only did S. J. Gould speak of the fact that it was taught in the NYC public school system, but he had the integrity to explore and expose the mistakes and problematic situations with it. You are saying, are you, that Gould lied about his exposure to the recapitulation theory by the NYC school system? I am surprised at you, and not even too saddened any more, since you have shown yourself to be a prevaricator. That in itself is saddening, that someone should bluster up like you do even in the face of facts.
Gould had the integrity to follow what he believed what was the truth (not that I agree with all his hypotheses), and to reveal, and explain reality when it was necessary. Sad that you won't admit it. But it adds to the case of prejudice as noted by some like yourself, also it reminds me of something a politician said to me and which we see going on around us today. He said, it's serious when one politician criticizes or disagrees with another. Then there is no cooperation and there is outright hostility.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would you assume they have a beginning? That would imply there is a time when they are not operative, but time itself is part of those physical laws.

More to the point, the notion of causality is *one* of the physical laws (to the extent it is true---it isn't always). So to talk about a cause (beginning, origin) of the natural laws is self-contradictory.

What I would say is that the physical laws are coexistent with matter, energy, space, and time. And the spacetime structure simply exists--it isn't caused at all.

Let's go back to one classic argument people make. You said the physical laws are coexistent with matter, energy, space, and time. Please explain gravity. Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, I asked that.


What sedimentary layers that resemble annual layering in lake varves and ice cores are you thinking of?

Regardless of how much time went by in previous ages, and layering, I was thinking -- when there is a large (or small) flood of any sort, things move, shall we say. Soil moves, objects move, and on and on.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would you assume they have a beginning? That would imply there is a time when they are not operative, but time itself is part of those physical laws.

More to the point, the notion of causality is *one* of the physical laws (to the extent it is true---it isn't always). So to talk about a cause (beginning, origin) of the natural laws is self-contradictory.

What I would say is that the physical laws are coexistent with matter, energy, space, and time. And the spacetime structure simply exists--it isn't caused at all.

So then, do you agree with scientists that say the universe is expanding?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, for starters, the earth and sun didn't until a few "days" in. Considering we measure a day by a full rotation of the earth on it's axis, and track it via the movement of the sun across the sky, we can assume that these early days likely didn't refer to literal 24-hour periods.


Uh huh. Care to provide any evidence of that?


If you believe Genesis is literally true, then we can already discount the entirety it.

Since the earth's topography has changed over a period of time, it is certainly possible that the outside environment (magnetic forces and the like) can change.

 

[Polymath257]

Let's go back to one classic argument people make. You said the physical laws are coexistent with matter, energy, space, and time. Please explain gravity. Thanks.

Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, so is also coexistent with all the rest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I find so interesting is that few scientists discuss the problematic situations with Haeckel's theory, both in idea and visuals, yet anything someone says that is truthful about the situation is put down by people like you and then sometimes you declare, "well, that's from a creationist website," or something like that. Not only did S. J. Gould speak of the fact that it was taught in the NYC public school system, but he had the integrity to explore and expose the mistakes and problematic situations with it. You are saying, are you, that Gould lied about his exposure to the recapitulation theory by the NYC school system? I am surprised at you, and not even too saddened any more, since you have shown yourself to be a prevaricator. That in itself is saddening, that someone should bluster up like you do even in the face of facts.
Gould had the integrity to follow what he believed what was the truth (not that I agree with all his hypotheses), and to reveal, and explain reality when it was necessary. Sad that you won't admit it. But it adds to the case of prejudice as noted by some like yourself, also it reminds me of something a politician said to me and which we see going on around us today. He said, it's serious when one politician criticizes or disagrees with another. Then there is no cooperation and there is outright hostility.

No, Gould was unnecessarily bothered by a very small point. I asked you a question and you dodged it again. Let's say that what Gould says was accurate. What difference does it make?

Haeckel, even given Gould's case, has not been part of evolution education for over fifty years. It has not been part of the theory for close to one hundred years.

What difference does it make?

Evolution is still a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since the earth's topography has changed over a period of time, it is certainly possible that the outside environment (magnetic forces and the like) can change.

So what? The poles have flipped hundreds of times. Why would that make a difference?

 

[Polymath257]

So then, do you agree with scientists that say the universe is expanding?

Yes, but it is important to understand what that says in context. The constant time slices are larger as we slice later in time.

So, by analogy, the Earth expands as we move north from the south pole and then contracts after the equator until we get to the north pole. The different latitude lines are larger up to the equator and then smaller after that until the north pole.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regardless of how much time went by in previous ages, and layering, I was thinking -- when there is a large (or small) flood of any sort, things move, shall we say. Soil moves, objects move, and on and on.

And we can see the results of floods. There is no evidence for the Flood of Noah.

 

[YoursTrue]

And we can see the results of floods. There is no evidence for the Flood of Noah.

I don't need a citation from you for this. Prove it. Yes, you can see the results of floods. And allow me to say that upon research I see there have been discovered underwater cities.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but it is important to understand what that says in context. The constant time slices are larger as we slice later in time.

So, by analogy, the Earth expands as we move north from the south pole and then contracts after the equator until we get to the north pole. The different latitude lines are larger up to the equator and then smaller after that until the north pole.

Is the universe expanding or is it not expanding?

 

[YoursTrue]

And we can see the results of floods. There is no evidence for the Flood of Noah.

Of course, censuses were not taken thousands of years ago, but doesn't mean I have not been thinking. And here is what wikipedia says about population thousands of years ago (even according to evolution...)
"A late human population bottleneck is postulated by some scholars at approximately 70,000 years ago, during the Toba catastrophe, when Homo sapiens population may have dropped to as low as between 1,000 and 10,000 individuals."
Now that's interesting, even though I believe differently.
World population estimates - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course, censuses were not taken thousands of years ago, but doesn't mean I have not been thinking. And here is what wikipedia says about population thousands of years ago (even according to evolution...)
"A late human population bottleneck is postulated by some scholars at approximately 70,000 years ago, during the Toba catastrophe, when Homo sapiens population may have dropped to as low as between 1,000 and 10,000 individuals."
Now that's interesting, even though I believe differently.
World population estimates - Wikipedia

You don't know how they know that. But on a related line of evidence the fact that you don't have to worry about waking up in a seedy hotel ice filled bathtub missing a kidney also tells us that there was no flood.

 

[YoursTrue]

Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, so is also coexistent with all the rest.

And you think these things just happened? In concert, together at the same time? Just like that? By themselves? Voila.
What anyway does "gravity is the curvature of spacetime" mean? Time was allowed for humans (I doubt chimpanzees, by the way, keep calendars or think much about these things...) by God. HE doesn't need time for himself. He is beyond time. He allows the concept of time for humans to function. Again -- ants, chimpanzees, bats, fireflies, none of them keep calendars. Or write history books. Humans are different.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't know how they know that. But on a related line of evidence the fact that you don't have to worry about waking up in a seedy hotel ice filled bathtub missing a kidney also tells us that there was no flood.

LOL, I'm not sure what you mean by that. But -- as wikipedia stated, many many years ago (according to scientific musings and speculations), apparently in that "bottleneck" of humankind a long time ago, there were relatively few humans alive. Says the article, "It is supported by some genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago." Regardless of what you believe, yes, I was wondering how many can come from a few. Quite a few, apparently.
(Notice the phrase, "supported by some genetic evidence..." )
See? There's your evidence. (Supported by some genetic evidence.) (Citations in the article.) Anyway, doesn't matter -- many can come from just a few...
Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

 

[YoursTrue]

... But on a related line of evidence the fact that you don't have to worry about waking up in a seedy hotel ice filled bathtub missing a kidney also tells us that there was no flood.

LOL, yeah, why? I'm not worried about that anyway. And, as someone else mentioned, black holes are the least of my worries. I think I'll worry more about having someone steal a kidney.

 

[YoursTrue]

And we can see the results of floods. There is no evidence for the Flood of Noah.

The NY Times had an article about population long, long ago. Like more than a million years ago.

"From the composition of just two human genomes, geneticists have computed the size of the human population 1.2 million years ago from which everyone in the world is descended.
They put the number at 18,500 people, but this refers only to breeding individuals, the “effective” population. The actual population would have been about three times as large, or 55,500."

So according to geneticists and the NY Times, 1.2 million years ago (lol), the number of people was 18,500, only for "breeding" individuals. LOL again. I guess those other persons remained celibate, lol. Or hybrids? Or unbreeding? Or unbreedable. And, of course, there are caveats and disagreements among scientists. But 18,000 or so more than a million years ago.