That doesn’t even make sense. If I “can be sure that the water will still boil at 100” then it won’t boil at 92°. I can only be sure that water will boil at 100° C if conditions are at standard pressure.
In natural sciences, we deal with probabilities. You are correct when you say it could be something else completely different but what is the probability that for example, an alien intelligence made repeated genetical modifications to existing animals so that they became step by step more like whales?
Any scientific hypothesis or theory is expected to provide predictions that can be tested. In the case of fossils, we cannot travel back in time to watch what happened but we can study if the predictions are correct.
If there has been a gradual or stepwise development from ‘ancestral’ type of animals towards ‘modern’ type of animals, there should have also been intermediate types. ‘Intermediate’ types could have developed from a subpopulation of the ‘ancestral’ type so it is possible that we have both ‘ancestral’ and ‘intermediate’ types living during the same time period, or the ‘intermediate’ types have lived after the ‘ancestral’ types. The critical evidence is the existence of fossils that show intermediate features and show that the ‘intermediate’ types have lived either later than or simultaneously with the ‘ancestral’ type.
Very few individuals are preserved as fossiles so it may be difficult to find such intermediate types. Anyhow, the prediction is that if we find fossiles from the time period between the ‘ancestral’ and ‘modern’ types, at least some of these fossiles should be ‘intermediate’ types. If predicted type of fossils are uncovered, that gives support to the hypothesis. The more support a hypothesis or theory gets, the more likely it is that the theory is correct. Usually, we never reach 100% confidence but if all observations are what the theory predicts, the theory can be treated as the most likely true explanation.
As the supporting evidence accumulates and there are no pieces that do not fit to the explanation, most rational thinkers accept the explanation. You can always hide behind the fact that the supporting evidence never gives a 100% confidence but as the evidence accumulates, that position becomes harder and harder to defend.
1 Like
You aren’t even making sense. What whale fossils have you actually seen? Which specific ones named as whale ancestors by scientists make you think they aren’t related to whales and why?
There is other evidence for whale evo besides the fossil record. Why do some living whales have a pelvis? And why do some whales have vestigial hind limbs totally encased within their bodies?
Science doesn’t work by verification or proofs, anyway. You could also claim that God poofed the world into existence last Thursday and created us with false memories.
Have you ever seen the whale episode from the video series “Inside Nature’s Giants”?
Have you ever read the essays on whale evolution by Steven J. Gould?
btw, all of astronomy is historical science, not observational science. You hardly ever observe anything in real time.
1 Like
Thanks for your reply.
You’re are dealing with origin of life there. Maybe you should include that in your summary of whale evo. Does make for interesting discussion once you break it down.
Did you say accept?. I’d probably say accept and believe, but that’s just me.
Your last comment sounds a bit like funneling people into agreeing with something based on being a rational thinker. How does one determine a rational thinker?
At the end of the day, accepting and believing or even verifying evo serves no purpose in my life. What can one do with verified knowledge we evolved from a single cell billions of yrs ago from non living material, just to eventually go back to non living material.
I agree and I still can only accept and believe them. I can’t verify most space claims, some look like you can. eg Tracking a planet etc etc. I’ve seen pictures of different space images and listened to different explanations of various space stories. Fascinating. What should I do with those stories?
[[quote=“beaglelady, post:104, topic:43863”]
You aren’t even making sense
[/quote]
What doesn’t make sense, so I can clear it up for you
quote=“beaglelady, post:104, topic:43863”]
What whale fossils have you actually seen?
[/quote]
I haven’t seen any personally.
I never said they weren’t. Read my comments carefully. I accept whale evo could be true, but I personally can’t verify it, so I can only accept and believe the story to be true based on what scientist tell us. I don’t deny the possibility of it being true, but from where Im currently sitting I can only accept and believe it
That depends doesn’t it. Scientist have verified speciation, hybridization and adaptation. No one has to accept those eg as beliefs.
No, but I have watch other shows discussing whale evo through an evo lens.
I did not write anything about the origin of life. Origin of life and biological evolution are different matters. Biological evolution starts from a situation where there is already life and studies how the life has changed, is changing, or will change.
The word ‘believe’ is used in various ways. I got the impression that you used the word to mean a matter that is not 100% certain. That leaves most of natural sciences at the level of belief.
That is a good comment. Logical thinking may lead to different conclusions depending on the basic assumptions, the information you know and accept as valid, and the subjective way how you interpret the world around you (through the metaphorical colored spectacles you wear).
In an optimal discussion, you would be aware of your basic assumptions and the bias caused by your colored spectacles, and would explain your assumptions and the pieces of information you consider valid to the persons you discuss with. The real world is suboptimal and rational thinkers may end up in different conclusions without realizing why they disagree.
If a fossil with a combination of terrestrial mammal and cetacean features is not evidence, then I have to wonder what evidence you are looking for.
2 Likes
Found a portion of the photo:
The YEC picture is on the bottom. The YEC picture is low res, and then they have people “accidently” placed in front of the fractures.
The most obvious difference is the height and angle of the canyon walls. Loosely consolidated ash can’t support a vertical wall much more than a few 10’s of feet which is why you don’t see them around Mt. St. Helens. However, they are everywhere in the GC. You need rock in order to have sheer faces in a canyon, not to mention that a rushing river does not form gooseneck meanders.
Just to re-emphasize, none of the features in the photo above are associated with the floods from Mt. St. Helens. The only way you are going to get those features is slow erosion through solid rock on a plateau that is slowly being uplifted, the cause of the incised meanders.
4 Likes
It’s still there:
The USGS photo has moved by the looks of things, but there’s an even better, sharper, higher resolution photo over on the other place:
Here’s where we discussed it:
2 Likes
My error, I read that incorrectly. “already existing animals”. All sweet. scrap what I said there. Must be those metaphorical colored spectacles
This is where everyone is getting stuck with what I’m saying and trying to explain. I’m not saying that most historical evo is a belief. I’m saying for me personally as it stands it is a belief. I can only accept and believe what scientist say.I have no means or ways to verify and prove their claims to be factual. I did also say in this comment section, people who accept evo also accept and believe what scientist say. This comment was rejected with some blowback with a variety of comments. I asked in return how they verified and proved the eg of whale evo and the work of the scientist and if they could show me how they did it. I received some links, drawing and a few insults and accusations and some other comments of no value, so I’m still in the same position.
What do you think I see with these colored spectacles you’re alluding to I wear? or am I misunderstanding your comment
True but hopefully honest open conversation can either close the gap of those conclusions or give understanding to the one who may lack it in r/e to the other persons pov.
Time will tell on that one.
1 Like
We"ve gotten off the whale evo topic
Your 2 pic comparison is pretty poor. Can you give a link to the creationist website that has this in it, or did someone just take a photo and changed the resolution. I won’t deny it’s a factual photo, but I do have to take your word for it.
Here’s a link of some clearly unbroken rock.
unbroken bent rock - Google Search
The reality is this bent rock is also fractured and some of it isn’t, that isn’t what is in dispute, but was it formed when wet or did it change from a flattish plane over millions of years.
My same argument for whale evo is the same for this. It is unverifiable and you can only accept and believe either explanation, difference being the creation explanation is up front it is a belief based on john 3:16.
quote=“T_aquaticus, post:111, topic:43863”]
You need rock in order to have sheer faces in a canyon, not to mention that a rushing river does not form gooseneck meanders.
[/quote]
It’s not a great pic, but the rushing water did carve a rough looking gooseneck by the look of it, so if the pic is real then that adds support to AIG claim of a flood carving out the GC and carving a gooseneck.
That’s another difference to take into consideration between the 2, one was rushing water, mt st H and the flood was more gentle based on scripture
The sheer cliff faces could also be attributed to the the drain off of water within tidal fluctuations. It was about 200 days of run off,
Genesis 7:24), and after these 150 days the waters gradually receded from the earth.
So it wasn’t fast moving water based on that scripture, so the water due to changing tides may not of moved much during tidal changes, creating those sheer cliffs. I don’t know, but that sounds plausible based on slow moving water to still water because of tidal changes. Doesn’t prove anything, but it sounds plausible.
FIGURE 5. Westward view looking down the North Fork of the Toutle River in August 1984. The rockslide and pumice deposited in the region of the headwaters of the river have been eroded to a depth of more than 100 feet forming a new dendritic drainage pattern. The deep canyon on the left includes the breached remnant of the large steam explosion pit (Figure 3). The canyon on the right is shown in detail in Figure 6. Significant canyon erosion by mudflow which established the dendritic drainage pattern occurred on March 19, 1982.
Unless you can personally verify that, then you can only accept and believe the scientist explanations for the GC, which I’ll add might be true, but I don’t know that for certain and either do you.
It isn’t about how much evidence there is or how much more can be found. It is about if I personally, as an eg can verify whale evo., or do I have to rely, accept and believe 100% on what scientist say about this topic. I don’t deny the possibility of it being true, but I have to put my full trust in everything they say.
You do not have to accept and believe what a scientist tells you, surely, to know that wet mud will not make mountains or steep canyons.
Is that your real point, pushing a narrative that YEC and science are equivalent as matters of trust and belief, so are you going to go with the saints or the reprobates?
Scientists do not just put out their conclusions, but justify those with data and evidence. YEC does not just interpret the same evidence with Biblical glasses, but knowingly and habitually fabricates and misrepresents data and evidence.
1 Like
What makes you think it was just wet mud. Maybe learn that side of the argument before commenting things no-one agrees with or says.
Well the bible is up front about it being a belief, so i know and understand exactly where I am on these matters as far as the bible goes. Science on the other hand maybe correct, but it isn’t based on belief, so if i can’t prove a claim, then it is a matter of trust and belief. That’s mainly being historical science such as the GC and Whale evo.
At least I’m allowed to choose freely to believe in it or not. I like that freedom.
I don’t. The evidence is that deposition and lithification was a process that extended over geological epochs with plenty of time for dewatering. Flood geologist assert all that sediment was transported and deposited by water 4500 years ago. Sloppy, oozy, soaking wet mud. If that sounds ridiculous, that is because Flood Geology is.
And you are free to post those beliefs in this forum. AiG or CMI sure wouldn’t allow my comments.
3 Likes
[Sorry, I thought I was talking to roy, just realised I wasn’t.
quote=“rsewell, post:118, topic:43863”]
Flood geologist assert all that sediment was transported and deposited by water 4500 years ago. Sloppy, oozy, soaking wet mud. If that sounds ridiculous, that is because Flood Geology is.
[/quote]
You seem to be ignoring 200 days of sediments from the bottom up settling as the waters were gradually receding.
Can you link me a quote were they say
Sloppy, oozy, soaking wet mud, or were you just adding that for effect?
Here’s a snippet from creation.com putting forward their thoughts on that.
quote
In the first 100 days or so after the Flood’s peak, massive sheet-like flow off the land into the relatively deepening ocean basins would have eroded vast areas, planing them flat. Secular geologists accept that, before Grand Canyon was carved, about 3,000 m thickness of sediments and sedimentary rocks were eroded from 130,000 km2 in the Grand Canyon area. They call this the ‘Great Denudation’.10
As the water level dropped, this sheet flow would start to divide into individual channels across the underlying surface, intensifying the erosion beneath each channel, cutting it rapidly and deepening grooves in the land surface. This receding water quickly carved Grand Canyon and other canyons, like Zion Canyon. The eroded sedimentary load was emptied into deep basins in southeast California and the ocean.
For me personally I take these types of eg with a grain salt, be it the flood model or evo explanations. I acknowledge I don’t know how the GC was formed, but I keep the possibilities of its formation on the table and leave it at that.
I can’t speak for them. I don’t like hearing that. I’m into freedom of speech for everyone as long as it’s respectful. I get the same on quora where most people have blocked me and youtube stopped posting my comments… I’m never disrespectful, degrading, aggressive, or rude to anyone. I’ve had one person threaten to punch me in the face. That was a bit unsociable. Anyway I appreciate the folks behind this forum they’ve allowed me to write my opinions and thoughts.
What did you write to AIG and CMI were they wouldn’t allow your comments?
Here is the webpage it came from. A quote from the page:
It seems you just prefer not to accept evidence that contradicts creationism.
Rushing water doesn’t pile up in a narrow stream. Rushing water spreads out. Think of all the floods you have seen and how water expands out to cover more area. An example of what an actual massive rush of water would look like is the Channeled Scablands in the northwestern US.
You get braided channels that run parallel to one another. You don’t get one meandering channel with side channels that enter perpendicular to the main channel as is seen in the Grand Canyon.
You have gone from everything being unverifiable to “sounds plausible”. That’s quite a shift.
Again, you do not need to trust and believe scientists, just use common sense. Settling is not dewatering, so I am not ignoring anything.
Do they say subaqueous sediment was deposited dry?
YEC illogic is often found in obvious inconsistencies they fail to discuss.
2 Likes