is it cherry-picking or careful reading? how can a faith be based on an old book?

[shunyadragon]

hmm.... I don't remember quoting them.

So, if I don't agree with you.............

I prefer freedom of thought.

Your arguments are definitely YEC/OEC related and directly reflect the arguments found in Answers in Genesis, and other Creationist organizations. Your accusation of anti-creationist views reflects this agenda.

I believe in God and Creation and a scientist, and find the archaic YEC/OEC worldview of science the most horrendous corruption of reason, logic and science possible.

 

[Corvus]

Wow... that speaks so loudly and says so much.

I hope so. You are being absurd. Try as you like to assassinate my character.

 

[shunyadragon]

And I thought you were biased in macro evolution.

The evidence of evolution is overwhelming covering geologic and paleontologic evidence. Making a distinction between micro and macro evolution is an artificial imaginary distinction simply trying to justify a YEC/OEC agenda straight from Answers in Genesis, which requires the pledge that the Bible trumps scientific evidence.

 

[Corvus]

The evidence of evolution is overwhelming covering geologic and paleontologic evidence. Making a distinction between micro and macro evolution is an artificial imaginary distinction simply trying to justify a YEC/OEC agenda straight from Answers in Genesis, which requires the pledge that the Bible trumps scientific evidence.

Indeed, macro evolution is just the culmination of many micro evolutionary events. It is a simple premise, but one frequently ignored.

 

[Corvus]

which requires the pledge that the Bible trumps scientific evidence.

Which is acutely irrational and ill advised.

 

[Socratic Berean]

The evidence of evolution is overwhelming covering geologic and paleontologic evidence. Making a distinction between micro and macro evolution is an artificial imaginary distinction simply trying to justify a YEC/OEC agenda straight from Answers in Genesis, which requires the pledge that the Bible trumps scientific evidence.

Shunyadragon - Given your professional background, what is your take on the findings regarding rapid coal formation (Gentry's work published in Science several decades ago, still unrefuted in peer-reviewed literature, Argonne Labs work, etc.), dinosaur soft tissues, and the lack of credible transitionary forms in the fossil record? (Not fishing for an argument, just curious about your views).

 

[Kenny]

The bogus last resort Pascals Wager par excellence. when reason, logic and bogus science fail.

Changing the subject with meaningless posts adds mustard to the mix.

And yet... there is such a simple truth to that statement. Where else will we find empirical and verifiable evidence?

 

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon - Given your professional background, what is your take on the findings regarding rapid coal formation (Gentry's work published in Science several decades ago, still unrefuted in peer-reviewed literature, Argonne Labs work, etc.), dinosaur soft tissues, and the lack of credible transitionary forms in the fossil record? (Not fishing for an argument, just curious about your views).

I will deal with these one at a time.

Yes, in a lab Gentry made a synthetic coal, and it is not refuted that this is possible in the lab. Nothing new, because many scientists have done this, but that is not evidence that the vast coal formations of the world, and how they formed. I worked in West Virginia in the coal fields for 15 years, and know the geologic formations very intimately.

The coal in Appalachia occurs in cycles of sandstone, shale and coal thousands of feet thick. First problem is the huge amount of coal involved. Gentry nor other Creationists have been able to explain how this huge amount of coal could have formed in a short time. It is physically impossible, and math is just not there. also formations of coal 10 feet thick would require over hundreds of feet of peat and muck to form over time compressed by overlying formations. Second, in the cyclic formations there are repeated layers in the shale that contain intricate fossils of worm tracks, small animals track, mud cracks of dried soil layers, evidence of soil formation, and many other fossils typical of swamps found today. Coal formations form in swamps. These fossils in formations are repeated in every cycle, Third in many of the formations there are reelect meandering river systems, with oxbow lakes, natural levies that can be followed for hundreds of miles. The reelect river systems are found in all the coal formations repeated many times in the cycles of coal, sandstone and shale formations. Forth, there are casts of standing forests stumps and associated fossil leaves and under story plants in many of the sandstone formations, and some of these still have associated root systems in the shale under the sandstone. The sand is windblown sand and covered the forest in sand dunes. The fossils are sand filled casts of trees. Fifth, the is detailed fossil evidence of forest fires in discreet layers within the coal formations. This is only a partial list of the overwhelming evidence that the coal formations were laid down millions of years ago over a period of millions of years. The geomorphologic properties of the formations are the same as what is seen in the vast swamp forests of the present the same coal forming conditions exist.

Next post dinosaur soft (?) tissues, and misrepresentation of the scientist that first describe these fossils.

 

[shunyadragon]

And yet... there is such a simple truth to that statement. Where else will we find empirical and verifiable evidence?

All over the world.

One point is clear from the geologic evidence. The erosion of the Missoula flood and Mount Saint Helens (often dishonestly referenced by Answers in Genesis) for rapid canyon formation) were unconsolidated volcanic ash Mount St Helens), and loess and glacial sediments (Missoula flood). The erosion in the Grand canyon is through solid rock, sandstone limestone, shale, volcanic lave and metamorphic rock. This objective verifiable evidence will never change.

Please note my post on the geologic evidence of coal formation millions of years old deposited millions of years ago. The advances of science, nor 'opinions' will ever change the hard objective verifiable evidence in the earth,

 

[Kenny]

All over the world.

One point is clear form the geologic evidence. The erosion of the Missoula flood and Mount Saint Helens (often dishonestly referenced by Answers in Genesis for rapid canyon formation) were unconsolidated volcanic ash Mount St Helens), and loess and glacial sediments (Missoula flood). The erosion in the Grand canyon is through solid rock, sandstone limestone, shale, volcanic lave and metamorphic rock. This objective verifiable evidence will never change.

Out of context in what and why I said it.

 

[Corvus]

and the lack of credible transitionary forms in the fossil record?

Of which particular ancestral form and extant species?

Any of those listed here perchance? List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

It's ironic that people have direct access to relevant information and then don't when making spurious claims. Irrational, because it makes you look ridiculous.

 

[shunyadragon]

Out of context in what and why I said it.

Most important, within the context of discussion of the problem of objective empirical and verifiable evidence.

Religious beliefs and questions of faith should not bias the science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon - Given your professional background, what is your take on the findings regarding rapid coal formation (Gentry's work published in Science several decades ago, still unrefuted in peer-reviewed literature, Argonne Labs work, etc.), dinosaur soft tissues, and the lack of credible transitionarl forms in the fossil record? (Not fishing for an argument, just curious about your views).

I reviewed a paper presented by Gentry et al. concerning his claim of evidence in Wyoming Coal supports the Creationist belief in young coal. It is not good science with simplistic conclusion, I will review this later, but first . . . claim of soft tissue of dinosaurs.

First the fossils in question were described as fossilized by the paleontologist who did the research. The relative preservation some parts of the fossils are inside hard fossilized material. These soft fossils were isolated from oxidation and mineralization (replacement of the the original organic material with inorganic minerals, by surrounding fossilized bone. Conclusion, this a fossilized collagen inside a fossilized bone.

References to follow.

 

[Socratic Berean]

I reviewed a paper presented by Gentry et al. concerning his claim of evidence in Wyoming Coal supports the Creationist belief in young coal. It is not good science with simplistic conclusion, I will review this later, but first . . . claim of soft tissue of dinosaurs.

What are your thoughts about his peer-reviewed work published in the journal Science? That publication is rather picky about what they print, or at least it used to be. From what I understand, it has never been refuted in any peer-reviewed product, though there are some self-published critiques on the internet.

What are your impressions of others' work on rapid coal formation? I mentioned Argonne National Labs (which actually created coal in a period of a few years, if I recall correctly), but I believe there are a few more that point in the same direction. There have also been several on rapid petroleum formation.

Rapid formation of either coal or petroleum presents some challenges to current thinking on geological ages, if I'm not mistaken. (I don't have a background in geology, and I am not a Young Earth Creationist, but I welcome your professional input on this set of outlying research results.)

First the fossils in question were described as fossilized by the paleontologist who did the research. The relative preservation some parts of the fossils are inside hard fossilized material. These soft fossils were isolated from oxidation and mineralization (replacement of the the original organic material with inorganic minerals.

Which example are you referring to? There have been several going back to 2005.

I suppose the real question in my mind is: "How long can we reasonably expect soft tissues to exist post mortem under any conditions?"

 

[shunyadragon]

What are your thoughts about his peer-reviewed work published in the journal Science? That publication is rather picky about what they print, or at least it used to be. From what I understand, it has never been refuted in any peer-reviewed product, though there are some self-published critiques on the internet.

The actual experiments were well documented, and yes qualify for a peer reviewed journal, but they do not lead to the conclusion that coal formations were developed in a short period of time. This a conclusion not in the journal, but one made by Gentry after the published article to support YEC
Creationism, which is not in the Science article nor any other peer reviewed journal article contained the conclusion that the experiment justified the conclusion that ALL coal was formed recently.

You need to consider all the geologic and paleogeologic evidence before you an support these conclusions, and he fails to do that. I gave just a short list of real objective verified geologic evidence I worked on directly

What are your impressions of others' work on rapid coal formation? I mentioned Argonne National Labs (which actually created coal in a period of a few years, if I recall correctly), but I believe there are a few more that point in the same direction. There have also been several on rapid petroleum formation.

These experiments were lab conditions and not natural conditions using material that were not natural.

Rapid formation of either coal or petroleum presents some challenges to current thinking on geological ages, if I'm not mistaken. (I don't have a background in geology, and I am not a Young Earth Creationist, but I welcome your professional input on this set of outlying research results.)

Lab experiments on the artificial making of coal and petroleum under controlled conditions in the lab is not evidence of the vast amounts of coal being developed in a short amount of time; I took a look at the procedures. They used procedures that were not natural.

Which example are you referring to? There have been several going back to 2005.

All of the articles by Mary Schweitzer, Stephen Brusatte, Robert Reisz, and other paleontogists that published the research on the fossils..

I suppose the real question in my mind is: "How long can we reasonably expect soft tissues to exist post mortum under any conditions?"

First they are not soft fossilized materials preserved in their original condition. Second, their fossilized remains isolated from oxidation and mineral replacement can last for millions of years easily. Remember they represent fossilized collagen within hard fossilized bone,

 

[Socratic Berean]

Of which particular ancestral form and extant species?

Any of those listed here perchance? List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia

It's ironic that people have direct access to relevant information and then don't when making spurious claims. Irrational, because it makes you look ridiculous.

Indeed. From the very source you cite:
"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely."

 

[Socratic Berean]

The actual experiments were well documented, and yes qualify for a peer reviewed journal, but they do not lead to the conclusion that coal formations were developed in a short period of time. This a conclusion not in the journal, but one made by Gentry after the published article to support YEC
Creationism, which is not in the Science article nor any other peer reviewed journal article.

You need to consider all the geologic and paleogeologic evidence before you an support these conclusions, and he fails to do that.



These experiments were lab conditions and not natural conditions using material that were not natural.



Lab experiments on the artificial making of coal and petroleum under controlled conditions in the lab is not evidence of the vast amounts of coal being developed in a short amount of time; I took a look at the procedures. They used procedures that were not natural.



All of the articles.



First they are not soft fossilized materials preserved in their original condition. Second, their fossilized remains isolated from oxidation and mineral replacement can last for millions of years easily. Remember they represent fossilized collagen within hard fossilized bone,

Thanks for the input. Any thoughts on the videos available showing rapid petroleum formation ongoing at the junction of undersea volcanoes and sea water or the videos of the stretching of the dinosaur soft tissues under microscope? (Is it possible for fossilized collagen to retain elasticity? Not baiting you here... I simply don't know.)

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for the input. Any thoughts on the videos available showing rapid petroleum formation ongoing at the junction of undersea volcanoes and sea water . . .

Yes, these are examples of rapid formation of petroleum, but volcanics are not involved in the formations where the known vast petroleum reserves occur under natural conditions,

. . . or the videos of the stretching of the dinosaur soft tissues under microscope? (Is it possible for fossilized collagen to retain elasticity? Not baiting you here... I simply don't know.)

If the fossilized fossil collagen is naturally flexible, than the fossilized fossil collagen is naturally flexible, and this is not the first time mineral materials, even some inorganic materials are naturally flexible. The simple physical property that something is flexible does not make it young nor old.

 

[Socratic Berean]

Yes, these are examples of rapid formation of petroleum...

Thanks, again, for the input.

 

[shunyadragon]

Interesting direction this thread has taken regardless of ones belief. The consideration that careful less biased reading of both the Bible and science is important in resolving the conflicts.

The standard must be that scripture and belief should not be the standard for interpreting science, and science should remain neutral and independent of religious beliefs.

Cherry picking science to justify ones belief goes hand in hand with cherry picking scripture to justify ones belief.