'Deep Time' and 'Evolution' allegedly 'falsified' by 'Rigorous' Empirical Research

[knor (Kai)]

@Burrawang

If a person has been indoctrinated into deep time and evolution since they were five years old, then it’s no surprise that they see deep time and evolution as real, as fact, set in concrete etc

After I became a believer, I trusted the books that advocated YEC. Even argued for YEC interpretations. When I learned more, I noticed that the seemingly great examples and claims in the YEC literature did not stand closer inspection - the claims were simply not true. I thought that was the problem of just a few books, so I searched for more credible YEC literature, claims that would stand critical examination. I did not find such. Slowly I had to admit that all the facts pointed towards an old earth and old life.

I still believe that God created this world and us. The question is just how did He do it?

All available facts speak against a young earth and young life. After I learned basic theology and exegesis of biblical scriptures, I noted that even the creation story in Genesis 1 does not support the YEC interpretations. Truth is important for me, so I have to accept what the facts about this creation and a credible interpretation of Genesis 1 tells.

[Roy]

@Burrawang

@Roy

@Burrawang

Dear Roy,
you assert this as though evolution is a concrete fact.

It is a concrete fact. Evolution is happening now. We can see it’s effects, and watch it in action.

Dear Roy,
REALLY?

Yes, really.

[comments about evolution in the distant past, which was not what I was talking about, have been ignored]

@Burrawang

@Roy

We see it in bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics. We see it in viruses becoming immune to vaccines. We see it in small animals that become camouflaged against polluted trees or man made structures. We have even demonstrated that it happens in the lab.

REALLY!

Yes, really.

@Burrawang

I think what you are referring to is NATURAL SELECTION in action, nothing more and nothing less.

Bovine faeces. All the examples I gave invole mutation as well.

@Burrawang

Please tell me what lab has demonstrated evolution?

Lenski’s, among many others.

@Burrawang

And what did they demonstrate that is not simply more NATURAL SELECTION WITHIN A SPECIES OR EVEN THE BROADER BIBLICAL KIND?

Mutations.

Mutations are not part of natural selection.

Omitted text restored:

@Burrawang

@Roy

I note that you stopped quoting my post immediately before the words “after the flood”. It seems to me that you wished to reply as if I was talking about evolution in the distant past, and not about evolution in the last 4,000 years. That would make you dishonest.

No Roy, there’s no conspiracy, just using common sense to get the focus of what I was saying here.

Yet you are still talking about evolution in the distant past, and not about evolution in the last few thousand years since the flood. You are ignoring what I said.

[Roy]

@Burrawang

It may be within your worldview, but after more than fifty years of evaluating all the evidence, …

Bovine faeces.

You haven’t even looked at the evidence.

All you do is parrot lies from creationist websites. Lies like this:
“there are ZERO INTERMEDIATE FORMS between one species and a different one”.

@Burrawang

I have come to the conclusion that evolution does not and has not ever occurred; all that we ever see is NATURAL SELECTION. That’s it. No evolution, just a minor change within a species from Natural Selection, is all we ever see.

I’m glad that you’ve said this, because it makes it even clearer that you do not think there has been any evolution since the flood. No new species, just minor changes within species.

Even the major creationist sites you cite have long admitted that there have been many new species, if only to ease the problem of fitting all the species on the ark.

@Burrawang

Do you have a sound explanation as to why, the evolution myth claims that everything else has completely changed, but the above organisms are pretty well identical to their fossils dated at 100 million years or more?

If you really had spent “fifty years of evaluating all the evidence” for evolution, instead of just swallowing the swill you’ve been fed by creation.com etc, you wouldn’t need to ask.

[Bill_II]

@Burrawang

well isn’t that just ever so convenient!

More like an inconvenient truth.

@Burrawang

Yes under normal conditions, I would agree that fossilisation does not happen every day, however the enormous quantities of finely detailed, exceptionally preserved fossils found all over the Earth in sedimentary strata, is yet further evidence of the catastrophic Global Flood of Noah’s day.

Hold that thought.

@Burrawang

Rapid burial in sediment moving within fast flowing water is what laid down the massive numbers of fossils we have in museums and collections from all over the Earth.

How did the fossils of delicate, fragile animals get preserved then? Animals that would break apart in fast flowing water. Pick a lane and stay in it. Either the water flow was fast and turbulent or it was slow and gentle.

@Burrawang

But there are ZERO INTERMEDIATE FORMS between one species and a different one that the myth states came from it!

Repeating a YEC “misstatement” (won’t call it a lie) doesn’t make it true.

And BTW, the “massive numbers of fossils” is actually a problem for the YEC model. In some cases, there are more fossils preserved in one layer than could have been alive at the time of the flood. Reference available, but I know you don’t want to see it.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@jammycakes

This statement does not say that the theory of evolution as a whole is any sort of “house of cards” or “smokescreen.”

As someone who accepts the theory of evolution, I would agree with the statement. The complexity of life can not be explained by random mutation and natural selection alone. For a start, neutral evolution is going to play a role in complex life.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Burrawang

Then for starters exactly where are the billions, no trillions, no billions of trillions of intermediate animals that culminated in the diversity of life on Earth, and I mean both extant and extinct species.

List of transitional forms

@Burrawang

And what did they demonstrate that is not simply more NATURAL SELECTION WITHIN A SPECIES OR EVEN THE BROADER BIBLICAL KIND?

How do you determine if two organisms belong to the same biblical kind?

@Burrawang

A bacteria developing a resistance to an antibiotic for example is NOT evolution, it is NATURAL SELECTION at work.

That’s as dumb as someone saying rain is not precipitation, it’s water vapor condensing into water and falling out of the sky.

Natural selection is evolution.

@Burrawang

No-one that I know of, thinks the information in all living things is trivial, or simple to understand, it is mindbogglingly complex, and incomprehensibly integrated, to a level that we humans can only dream about, and the information storage capacity of DNA right down at the molecular level, is absolutely genius beyond description, that in comparison, makes our pathetic little computers look like kindergarten level attempts at miniaturisation of information storage.

So all you have is an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

@Burrawang

So please tell me, where do you believe all that novel information came from in the assumed ascension from single cell to you and me?

You would first have to demonstrate that you can measure information in genomes. There’s no reason to demonstrate an increase in information in genomes if you can’t even measure it.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Burrawang

There are many thousands of scientists worldwide who agree that evolution is a house of cards, a smokescreen, so improbable that its impossible.

• You’re a regular hyperbolic prevaricator, Burrawang. @jammycakes poked a hole in your balloon just by posting the “Scientific Dissent List” dated 07/30/2025.

• Does dissent = “disproving”?

  • Having skeptics doesn’t in itself invalidate a theory. In science, a theory is overturned or to be revised when new evidence accumulates to a tipping point. The presence of dissenters doesn’t by default mean the theory is flawed — the burden of proof lies with the challengers to show a better model or show that current models cannot, in fact, explain observed phenomena.

  Here’s a quick, sourced read on dissentfromdarwin.org and how to interpret it.

  What it is (and who runs it)

  • The site hosts a petition called “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” Its core sentence is:
    “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life…” (dissentfromdarwin.org)

  • It’s a project of the Discovery Institute (an Intelligent Design advocacy group). The site links its downloadable list to discovery.org; the PDF itself carries Discovery Institute branding and notes the last public update was May 2021. (dissentfromdarwin.org)

  What the petition actually says

  • It doesn’t reject evolution wholesale; it focuses narrowly on skepticism that random mutation + natural selection alone explain biological complexity. (Modern evolutionary theory also includes drift, gene flow, recombination, endosymbiosis, etc.) (dissentfromdarwin.org)

  • The site’s FAQ says the statement was started in 2001, and that since then signers have grown to “over 1,000 scientists.” The current downloadable list indicates a May 2021 update. (dissentfromdarwin.org)

  How scientists and educators view it

  • Science organizations have long criticized this list as a PR appeal to authority (counting signatures rather than providing new evidence), and for using ambiguous wording (“Darwinism”) and a narrow straw target (RM+NS only). (ncse.ngo)

  • The National Center for Science Education’s tongue-in-cheek Project Steve shows that scientists named Steve/Stephanie alone who support evolution outnumber much of the DI list—illustrating how consensus strongly favors evolution. (ncse.ngo)

  • In education policy, U.S. courts have ruled that Intelligent Design is not science and can’t be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school biology (e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover, Dec 20, 2005). (Cleveland.com)

  How to read this petition critically

  1. Scope: The statement doesn’t claim common descent is false; it questions one mechanism’s sufficiency. That distinction matters. (dissentfromdarwin.org)

  2. Expertise mix: Many signers are outside evolutionary biology; lists like this typically include chemists, engineers, physicians, etc., which isn’t the same as a vote among evolutionary biologists. (See NCSE’s analyses.) (ncse.ngo)

  3. Numbers vs. evidence: Science advances through peer-reviewed evidence and predictive models, not petitions. The overwhelming research base across genetics, paleontology, biogeography, and developmental biology supports evolution as a unifying framework. (NCSE reviews and mainstream summaries discuss this contrast.) (ncse.ngo)

  4. Out-of-date signal: The latest posted list is from 2021; the site’s “over 1,000” language doesn’t show current vetting or trends since then. (Discovery Institute)

  Bottom line

  • Dissentfromdarwin.org is a Discovery Institute petition expressing skepticism about one mechanism (RM+NS) and is used rhetorically to suggest a live scientific controversy. The mainstream scientific consensus remains that evolution is robustly supported, and U.S. courts have treated Intelligent Design as non-scientific in public-school contexts. (Wikipedia)

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Burrawang

But please don’t tell me that evolution is an undeniable fact, because there are many intelligent people who beg to differ.

Evolution is an undeniable fact.

Every crackpot idea and delusional cult on the planet has some intelligent advocates. Science too has its mavericks, which is why the rules of science are important. It may take a few years, but eventually sound conclusions are validated and built upon, and flawed ideas are rejected. The creationist enterprise is at odds with reality, and so must violate scientific norms of evidence, consistency and measurement. That the Earth is ancient has been universally understood now for a couple of centuries.

@Burrawang

Do you have a sound explanation as to why, the evolution myth claims that everything else has completely changed, but the above organisms are pretty well identical to their fossils dated at 100 million years or more?

I could spoon feed you, but why don’t you try thinking it out for yourself. Hint - what would be the case if an animal is well optimized for a given environment, and that environment or niche is comparatively stable?

Also, check your facts. Lots of change in crocodilia for instance.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Burrawang

Then for starters exactly where are the billions, no trillions, no billions of trillions of intermediate animals that culminated in the diversity of life on Earth, and I mean both extant and extinct species.

This is a indeed a huge embarrassment and falsification. No getting around it, this drives a spike into the heart of creationism.

The carrying capacity of the ark was woefully inadequate to embark every species or even genera on Earth. Every creationist organization out there deals with this by the unbiblical invention that post flood species on Earth, including extinct ones such as mammoths and saber tooth cats, all descended from a few representative animals on the ark. This happened during the last 4,500 years, during the time of recorded human history.

So how is it the Egyptians recognized the exact same distinct species of cats as we do? Where are the intermediate forms between elephants and mammoths. By the YEC account of post flood diversity, there should be intermediates everywhere, living, carcasses, and remains, right under our very noses. And given the recent time frame there is no excuse due to the scarcity of fossilization.

I always shake my head that someone could raise intermediate forms as an objection to evolution, when that is to expected given the exceptional requirements for fossilization, and it fails to even occur to creationists that is an insurmountable problem in their own laps.

[Terry_Sampson]

@rsewell

I could spoon feed you, but why don’t you try thinking it out for yourself.

• I’m gonna save the OWF the stress.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Burrawang

All animals are what God created, plain and simple.

Haven’t you heard of the many LIVING FOSSILS that abound with more being discovered all the time?

Haven’t you heard of the living fossils such as the Gingko trees, Crocodiles, Horseshoe Crabs, Coelacanth Fish, Tuatara Lizards, Lingula Lamp Shells and Neopilina Molluscs haven’t changed in at least a hundred million years. WHY?

Do you have a sound explanation as to why, the evolution myth claims that everything else has completely changed, but the above organisms are pretty well identical to their fossils dated at 100 million years or more?

Short answer: “Living fossils” don’t refute evolution. The term (which many biologists now avoid) just means morphological stasis—body plans that changed slowly—while genetic and physiological evolution continued. Stasis is an expected outcome under stabilizing selection and stable niches; it’s not a problem for evolutionary theory. (PMC)

Burrawang, your examples aren’t “unchanged”:

• Horseshoe crabs: their genomes show three rounds of whole-genome duplication and extensive gene/microRNA evolution—hardly “no change.” (Nature)

• Coelacanths: today’s Latimeria aren’t the fossil taxa; their proteins evolve more slowly, not zero—a measured, not frozen, rate. (Nature)

• Tuatara: the lineage split from lizards/snakes ~250 million years ago and shows moderate molecular rates with punctuated episodes. (Nature)

• Ginkgo: genome studies reveal selection, duplications, and adaptation despite outward similarity. (BioMed Central)

• Lingula (brachiopod): scholarly critiques show morphological evolution within Lingulidae; the “unchanged” label is misleading. (PMC)

• Crocodilians: modern crocs are one small, semi-aquatic slice of an extraordinarily diverse crocodyliform history; some living species show rapid evolutionary rates. (Natural History Museum)

Why stasis happens: when a niche stays stable and existing designs work, purifying/stabilizing selection trims variants away, conserving overall form while genes still change—and when environments or opportunities shift, lineages diversify again. That pattern (including long stasis with bursts of change) is widely documented, not an embarrassment to evolution. (PMC)

Bottom line: “Living fossils” illustrate rate variation in evolution—not its absence.

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@Burrawang

But there are ZERO INTERMEDIATE FORMS between one species and a different one that the myth states came from it!

I’ve repeatedly told you about multiple examples that I’ve collected.

@Burrawang

Haven’t you heard of the many LIVING FOSSILS that abound with more being discovered all the time?

Haven’t you heard of the living fossils such as the Gingko trees, Crocodiles, Horseshoe Crabs, Coelacanth Fish, Tuatara Lizards, Lingula Lamp Shells and Neopilina Molluscs haven’t changed in at least a hundred million years. WHY?

Because they found something that worked and has kept working. What the standard old earth, evolutionary model predicts is something vaguely looking like a decay curve for proportion of extant taxa going back through time, which is basically what we see. Murchisonellids are an extreme, with recognizable extant genera in the late Paleozoic, but that is statistically expected.

[Burrawang]

@Paraleptopecten

@Burrawang

But there are ZERO INTERMEDIATE FORMS between one species and a different one that the myth states came from it!

I’ve repeatedly told you about multiple examples that I’ve collected.

Dear Tim,

yes, you have repeatedly told me about molluscs that I expect show some visible morphological changes that is either variability of individuals within a population or adaptation to changes in environmental pressures, but at the end of the day, they remain molluscs, in other words at most all that has occurred is NATURAL SELECTION has done the job in slowing the overall downhill progression of those mollusc species genomes over time by making them more suited to their environment than others in the population.

@Paraleptopecten

@Burrawang

Haven’t you heard of the living fossils such as the Gingko trees, Crocodiles, Horseshoe Crabs, Coelacanth Fish, Tuatara Lizards, Lingula Lamp Shells and Neopilina Molluscs haven’t changed in at least a hundred million years. WHY?

Because they found something that worked and has kept working.

But Tim, please?

Why don’t you comprehend that what you have stated, is ever so much an unsatisfactory answer, it’s mind boggingly inane to say the least, but yes, it is the standard answer that is regurgitated by the evolution faithful, over and over; it is the primary go to from the mass indoctrination of the evolution faithful.

The problem that I have here, is that you subscribe to a theory that will accommodate absolutely anything at all, no matter what crops up, the theory of evolution has a neat ‘just so story’ to explain it!

Evolution believers have suggested that living fossils may have not changed because the species are generalists, whilst other evolutionists say the species are specialists and then other evolutionists think they’re examples of species that live reproductively fast, whilst other evolutionists say the living fossil species live reproductively slow whilst other evolutionists say that living fossils just keep it simple, whilst other evolutionists say the species don’t keep it simple, and yet other evolutionists say the species are in the right place at the right time and yet others think that the species are so well adapted to their environment that there is no need for them to change, yet all the while the rest of life on Earth is allegedly going through massive morphological changes that culminates in apes and then mankind!

Inane doesn’t even come close to describing evolution as science!

Pseudo science fits better, backed up by a heavy dose of indoctrination from kindergarten onwards!

I know what I have said, is not easy to hear, for people that are so deeply invested in a belief in evolution, and I am sorry for that, but this reality needs to be said, otherwise how else is anyone going to see through the deception that is and shall deceive the very elect in vast numbers.

Please just think outside the box for a minute or two, about the following REAL examples of Living Fossils:

Fossils of Archebacteria are claimed to be 3.5 billion years old, and still alive today unchanged!

Fossils of Neopilina Molluscs are claimed to be 500 million years old, and still alive today unchanged!

Fossils of Lingula Lamp Shells are claimed to be 450 million years old, and still alive today unchanged!

Fossils of Coelacanths are claimed to be 340 million years old, and still alive today unchanged!

Fossils of Cockroaches are claimed to be 250 million years old, and still alive today unchanged!

Fossils of Horseshoe Crabs are claimed to be 200 million years old, and still alive today unchanged!

Fossils of Tuatara Lizards are claimed to be 200 million years old, and still alive today unchanged!

Fossils of Crocodiles are claimed to be 140 million years old, and still alive today unchanged!

Fossils of Gingko Trees are claimed to be 125 million years old, and still alive today unchanged!

God Bless,

jon

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Burrawang

The principle that I operate from is really simple. It is in a nutshell, that I will always Trust the Holy Bible over mere human attempts to understand the creation.

This is why it is pointless to discuss evidence. You’ve already made a faith commitment that any evidence that contradicts your claims must be false, by definition. You’ve signed up for a cult that can’t be falsified. It doesn’t matter if you dress it up in Jesus talk and Bible speak. It’s still a cult because you go to hell if you stop believing their nonsense.

@Burrawang

It was a massive catastrophic event unparalleled by anything before or since it occurred. The entire planet was reshaped from a single landmass surrounded by water to the continental configuration we have now.

So the continents moved apart in the space of a few years? The constant tsunamis would’ve wiped out all life on the coasts. Trees would’ve been flattened for 50 miles inland. I’ll stop, but there’s exactly zero evidence for your belief.

@Burrawang

The copious volumes of very deep sedimentary rock strata all over the planet, that predominantly have sharp clean well defined boundaries between each strata layer of sediment, are stark testament to rapid deposition in a single event. There aren’t many examples of bioturbation, or erosion, or animal disturbance between the thousands of layers that in places go down continuously for over seven miles

It’s pointless to discuss evidence with you, so I offer this more for the guys like @jammycakes who might appreciate it. Let me introduce you to my friend @gbob, Glenn Morton (RIP)

@gbob

Ernie. go look up the Creation Research Society web site. You will find I published quite a bit back in the 1970s and 80s. Look up Glenn R Morton (one paper I Robert Morton). I worked in the oil industry and when I was 29 was in charge of recruiting and training geophysicists for Atlantic Richfield, which at the time employed 50,000 people, probably 1000 geophysicists. I hired geophysicists from Christian Heritage College, Henry Morris’ college. After a few years, they either left the industry because they couldn’t justify what they saw with what Henry taught, or they gave up the young earth. We didn’t indoctrinate them, it was the data that did it. And at the time, I was still a YEC myself. But by the mid 1980s, I threw in the towel.

Glenn’s 2000 essay is worth reading:

Old Earth Creation Science Testimony - Why I Left Young Earth Creationism,...

A few selections:

>For years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective. Being a physics major in college I had no geology courses. Thus, as a young Christian, when I was presented with the view that Christians must believe in a young-earth and global flood, I went along willingly. I knew there were problems but I thought I was going to solve them. When I graduated from college with a physics degree, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid a bunch of them off. I did graduate work in philosophy and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. Even after a year, physicists were still unemployable. After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.

>This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers. One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow.

>One also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon.

>I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.

>In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian….

>Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@Burrawang

The copious volumes of very deep sedimentary rock strata all over the planet, that predominantly have sharp clean well defined boundaries between each strata layer of sediment, are stark testament to rapid deposition in a single event. There aren’t many examples of bioturbation, or erosion, or animal disturbance between the thousands of layers that in places go down continuously for over seven miles!

Let’s check that claim against what @gbob says about sediment deposition that goes deep underground.

@gbob

The geologic data simply doesn’t support a young earth.Throughout out the geologic column, are burrows. There is one formation which which concerned me greatly, the Haymond formation of west Texas. It consists of about 15000 layers of sand and shale.

“Two thirds of the Haymond is composed of a repititious alternation of fine- and very fine-grained olive brown sandstone and black shale in beds from a millimeter to 5 cm thick. The formation is estimated to have more than 15,000 sandstone beds greater than 5 mm thick.” p. 87.
"Tool-mark casts (chiefly groove casts), flute casts and flute-lineation casts are common current-formed sole marks. Trace fossils in the form of sand-filled burrows are present on every sandstone sole, but nearly absent within sandstone beds. ~ Earle F. McBride,“Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of the Haymond Formation,” in Earle F. McBride, Stratigraphy, Sedimentary Structures and Origin of Flysch and Pre-Flysch Rocks, Marathon Basin, Texas (Dallas: Dallas Geological Society, 1969), p. 87-88

Give each layer 1 day for recolonization of burrowers the deposit would require 41 years. Haymond formation is about 1300 m and the entire geologic column is about 5000 m thick. If it was deposited by Noah flood then the math would be like this: 1300/5000*326=95 days this means 157 couplets / day. with burrows. Each day 157 times, one must have shale laid down, worms burrow into the shale and have the sand come in and fill in the burrows with sand, and the worms are never seen escaping the sand-catastrophe, so the next layer of shale must be laid down, worms burrow into it and sand fill those burrows, over and over for 95 days. There are NO shale filled burrows into the sand.

This seems impossible to do given the turbulence of the global flood. Below is what the formation looks like and notice after it solidified (diagenesis takes more than a year) it was uplifted and turned on its end.

haymond742×542 103 KB

[Burrawang]

@Jay313

@Burrawang

The principle that I operate from is really simple. It is in a nutshell, that I will always Trust the Holy Bible over mere human attempts to understand the creation.

This is why it is pointless to discuss evidence.

Dear Jay, as a Bible believing Christian who knows the Lord Jesus, who has given his life to Him, I put the Holy Bible ahead of the ponderings, assumptions, conjectures and thoughts of man.

I make no apology for my confession that Jesus Christ is Lord of all, He is the First and the Last, except through Him, will no man be saved from eternal separation from Him.

The only cult that can’t be falsified that I see here on this website, is the cult of Theistic Evolution!

@Jay313

@Burrawang

It was a massive catastrophic event unparalleled by anything before or since it occurred. The entire planet was reshaped from a single landmass surrounded by water to the continental configuration we have now.

So the continents moved apart in the space of a few years? The constant tsunamis would’ve wiped out all life on the coasts. Trees would’ve been flattened for 50 miles inland. I’ll stop, but there’s exactly zero evidence for your belief.

Yes, not in a few years either, but in one year only!

Yes, “the constant tsunamis would’ve wiped out all life on the coasts. Trees would’ve been flattened” everywhere, and all terrestrial life with the breath of life in their nostrils would have perished! That was the whole point determined by God Himself for the GLOBAL FLOOD, it all happened under the sea, the entire planet was covered in water. Yes there would have been many tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions as the Earth was rent, broken up and reshaped by God Himself, and I expect if Noah and his family weren’t safely aboard the ark floating on top of that GLOBAL COVERING OCEAN, they would not have survived either, except that I expect it likely that God had his hand on them and brought Noah, his family and all those breeding pairs of animals safely through the Global Flood.

Regarding the rest of your post, it is very interesting and I have no doubt that various people for various reasons will make their own decisions about what they believe. We all have to do that and i am sorry that your friend, has given way to a belief in deep time.

When I have more time, I will read the papers/articles that you have referenced and consider what is being stated in them.

God Bless,

jon

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

Some more for @Burrawang and @adamjedgar. It’s impossible for a global flood to account for what’s buried beneath our feet. More from Glenn Morton:

@gbob

We have spoken about the thicknesses of the geologic column I though I would show an oil field from the Tarim basin of China which is between 3200m. at the top of it. The seismic section below and the seismic map below that, show a karsted Ordovician terrane. Karsting happens to limestone when it is exposed to rainwater for a long long time. Hundreds of thousands of years at least. A cave is nothing more than a really really big karst. Karsting does not happen if sea water is covering the limestone. It has to be fresh water. The ragged reflector seen on the buried hill I the seismic below is the start of the karsting.

From the seismic you can see that this karsted mountain is buried by about 3000 m of younger sediment. The entire seismic section, which doesn’t represent the bottom of the sedimentary rock is about 22,000 ft or 7,000 m If they tried to say this is flood deposited it would require about 6 feet per day of deposition on average, and Karsts would not have time to form. The spaces opened up by the karsting filled with natural gas and oil and this is a very big field.

China’s geology is basically the paleozoic which includes the Ordovician karsted mountain, which was later covered by younger lake deposits. Over all that is a great description of China’s geology

At various places throughout China the Ordovician rocks are on the surface and being karsted today. I took a weekend in Guilin along the Li river in South China to see some of these amazing limestone formations. the bumps seen on the seismic are caused by things like this:

LiRiverTrip722592×1944 1.69 MB

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@Burrawang

@Paraleptopecten

@Burrawang

But there are ZERO INTERMEDIATE FORMS between one species and a different one that the myth states came from it!

I’ve repeatedly told you about multiple examples that I’ve collected.

Dear Tim,

yes, you have repeatedly told me about molluscs that I expect show some visible morphological changes that is either variability of individuals within a population

Given that the assignment as being transitional is specifically based on their falling outside of the observed variation within older and younger populations, or on the range of variation changing over time, no.

@Burrawang

adaptation to changes in environmental pressures

Otherwise known as evolution, to people who aren’t changing the definition idiosyncratically.

@Burrawang

at most all that has occurred is NATURAL SELECTION has done the job in slowing the overall downhill progression of those mollusc species genomes over time by making them more suited to their environment than others in the population.

What overall downhill progression? There is an overall tendency towards increasing fitness for an environment.

@Burrawang

Evolution believers have suggested that living fossils may have not changed because the species are generalists, whilst other evolutionists say the species are specialists and then other evolutionists think they’re examples of species that live reproductively fast, whilst other evolutionists say the living fossil species live reproductively slow whilst other evolutionists say that living fossils just keep it simple, whilst other evolutionists say the species don’t keep it simple, and yet other evolutionists say the species are in the right place at the right time and yet others think that the species are so well adapted to their environment that there is no need for them to change, yet all the while the rest of life on Earth is allegedly going through massive morphological changes that culminates in apes and then mankind!

That doesn’t accurately summarize anything I’ve ever heard. For all of those statements, there is at least one case where that appears to have contributed to longevity, but none of them work as universal generalizations. Each of those can promote longevity in some situations, and promote extinction in others. Also, there’s a bigger problem-- why does anything have a coherent stratigraphic range that doesn’t match habitat, escape ability, or hydrodynamic sorting?

@Burrawang

I know what I have said, is not easy to hear, for people that are so deeply invested in a belief in evolution

What makes it hard to hear is wading through the morass of inaccuracies and logical fallacies. There’s a reason that most scientists ignore claims that include anti-evolution or pro-young earth arguments, and it’s not because of worldviews or belief, it’s because the track record of the arguments is comparable to that of “Space Alien Weds Two-Headed Elvis Clone” headlines, purported perpetual motion devices, and horoscopes. If Young-earth advocates are trying to make themselves credible, they need to be willing to listen to correction and discard bad arguments.

@Burrawang

Please just think outside the box for a minute or two, about the following REAL examples of Living Fossils:

All of which are overstated (they aren’t “unchanged”, just minimally changed in morphology). Also, the first two are wrong. Bacteria look like bacteria. There’s not much morphology to use to tell if they’re really similar to our really different from any modern groups. Neopilina only confidently dates to the Devonian, the earlier groups of “monoplacophorans” are probably rostroconchs, helcionellids, or other similar groups of more stem taxa.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Burrawang

there would have been many tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions as the Earth was rent, broken up and reshaped by God Himself

How many times in this topic have you put out statements like this that are not in the Bible? They are not scripture, nor are they scientifically based.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Burrawang

The only cult that can’t be falsified that I see here on this website, is the cult of Theistic Evolution!

Partly right - you are correct that you’ve not been able to give a single answer to any of the actual challenges or evidences raised other than just declaring that you trust your own understandings (which you attempt to equate with scripture itself). So - yeah - evolution hasn’t yet been falsified any more than a round earth has been; not because it isn’t falsifiable, but because it’s difficult to falsify something that evidence shows really happened! I know your mind has been darkened and blinded by those whom you imagine are your “friends” but who fill your mind with lies not found in scriptures. Real friends are those who speak truth - a very hard commodity to find these days, but you have valuable pockets of it right here among those who still prize truth above ideology.