Defending the Tale of the Whale

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

The YEC claim was that 1. the rocks were bent without cracks and 2. that such bending shows that the rocks were still all wet sediment from the flood, not solid rock, when they formed. Both of those can be proved to be false. The photos already posted show that the rocks do have cracks which were concealed in the poor quality photo supplied to “prove” that the rocks did not have cracks. The video I posted shows a rock bending without visible cracking. The claim that bending without cracking must indicate unconsolidated sediment is also definitely untrue. Proving what processes created the folds seen in a particular layer is more involved, and it cannot be “proof” of the sort in a geometry text. But it is possible to determine that some claims are wrong, and that some are well-supported and others poorly-supported.

Creation science models that claim that a significant amount of the geological record was deposited by the flood imply that water was moving extremely rapidly. You are correct that the claim of rapid water movement does not match the biblical description of Noah’s flood. But rapid water movement is part of many YEC models. It is also implied by all YEC models. Cramming most plate movement into the Flood would cause massive global tsunamis if all the water didn’t evaporate from the heat first. Water will not move slowly when it’s on plates travelling at 30 miles per hour. Globally, there are thousands of changes in microfossil types, shifts in stable isotope concentrations, and other world-wide changes in things we can find in the geologic record. Seawater has to mix all around the globe to distribute each of those changes. Currently, it takes around 300 years for seawater to circle all around the globe. Depositing any significant chunk of the geologic column in a year requires multiple rounds of global mixing within that year in order to produce the series of global changes in the organisms and environmental markers.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

Wikipedia - Vestigiality

Bold mine:

Vestigiality is the retention, during the process of evolution, of genetically determined structures or attributes that have lost some or all of the ancestral function in a given species…
Although structures commonly regarded “vestigial” may have lost some or all of the functional roles that they had played in ancestral organisms, such structures may retain lesser functions or may have become adapted to new roles in extant populations.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

Your fight with yec is between you and them, I don’t have any affiliation with them nor do I support all their claims.I’m not against them either. There are plenty of dodgy people on both sides of the evo/creation debate. Something I am always learning about.
If they hide stuff, that’s on them. I’ve never seen the GC ,so I can’t comment if what they say is non cracked bent rock or not. Looking at the pic it looks fractured in area’s. My immediate thought to that was , was their bits of rock simply coming away from the main structure and in turn fracturing. I don’t know. I’m happy to take your word for it.

i have uploaded a picture that does clearly show in the same formation fractured and unfractured rock in the same bends. Regardless of what AIG were doing, from where I’m sitting, sifting through pics of bent rocks , fractured and non fractured bent rock exist, so I’m ok with that.

The main issue is how it came that way. Both explanations is what my main focus on this forum is, is that I can’t prove it was by soft sediment being bent into that shape from the global flood, based on the AIG eg, though I can see that happening compared to straight rock bending over millions of years, which requires a bit more imagination.
At the end of the day for me I can only accept and believe the 2 different explanations, but one I already know it is based on belief. No-one can prove noah’s flood and that is how it was written. John 3:16 is confirmation of that. So that I am am comfortable with, as I don’t have to go out and verify and prove it to myself or anyone else.

The other option is not a belief so I am constantly told and this is where I get stuck as I can’t verify a claim or the scientist work.
Kind’ve stuck between a rock and a hard place [pardon the pun]

As far as the flood goes, it is the same thing. You can come up with reasons it can’t happen or read from scientist report on it and someone else can come up with reasons to show it did. It doesn’t affect me either way. Both explanations I can’t proved to be correct or incorrect, which is what I’m trying to establish here, so I have to resort back to what options are available to me. The bible says it is a belief, so that I can do if I wish to and the other is not a belief, but I can’t prove it to be true.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

@St.Roymond

Do you have that rare disability that makes charts/graphs incomprehensible? There was a guy like that in my volcanology class; it made things really hard for him.

That is a bit of ignorance there on your part. The reality of the world is that not everyone has the same learning capacity or the same ability to learn as others do. I didn’t start understanding how I learned things until I wrote songs when I was a late teenager 19yrs old. . That process of songwriting was easy and understanding sheet music was easy as well, though it was a bit complicated as you advance through to higher grades, but anyway I found something that gelled with me.

I tend to use this process now to teach myself new things. It is at a pace that I can absorb information, but usually in very small amounts and I usually can only take in so much of it, before it doesn’t make sense, so I have to stop and go back to songwriting or currently filmmaking for a music video to remove the clogging up of information… It is slow in comparison I guess to most, but it is functionable to degree.
Hope that makes a bit more sense for you.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

@rsewell

Although structures commonly regarded “vestigial” may have lost some or all of the functional roles that they had played in ancestral organisms, such structures may retain lesser functions or may have become adapted to new roles in extant populations.

There is nothing in the dictionary that says a bone or bones will repurpose them selves to become another function. We don’t see that in animals to day. It may of happened, but I can only accept and believe it did.

Oxford dictionary

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Rhythmic_supercat

There is nothing in the dictionary that says a bone or bones will repurpose them selves to become another function.

The quote is from wikipedia, and captures the usage in biology.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

I also gave the one from oxford. The point is, it says nothing about a vestigial bone or bones being repurposed for a different function.

The claimed vestigial bones do have a purpose. They can’t be claimed as vestigial. It doesn’t fit the oxford dictionary definition of what vestigial means. Maybe there is a different word you can use where one set of limbs disappear and are repurposed for a different function later on.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Rhythmic_supercat

The claimed vestigial bones do have a purpose.

I agree, but then I accept the work of the evolutionary scientists who produced the study. How would you know the bones have a purpose?

@Rhythmic_supercat

Maybe there is a different word you can use where one set of limbs disappear and are repurposed for a different function later on.

Did you read the Wikipedia discussion? The word you are looking for is exaptation. Note that vestigiality and exaptation are NOT mutually exclusive.

It is important to avoid confusion of the concept of vestigiality with that of exaptation. Both may occur together in the same example, depending on the relevant point of view. In exaptation, a structure originally used for one purpose is modified for a new one.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

@rsewell

I agree, but then I accept the work of the evolutionary scientists who produced the study. How would you know the bones have a purpose?

I don’t , but I do accept and believe what they say in this eg. This study is observable and in action. They don’t have to guess it’s purpose once they understood it. No-one on both sides of the fence is in dispute of this claim.

@rsewell

Did you read the Wikipedia discussion? The word you are looking for is exaptation. Note that vestigiality and exaptation are NOT mutually exclusive.

That’s good. the proper word for the changing of one type of limbs to be used as a different function down the track is exaptation.

@rsewell

It is important to avoid confusion of the concept of vestigiality with that of exaptation. Both may occur together in the same example, depending on the relevant point of view. In exaptation, a structure originally used for one purpose is modified for a new one.

I understand that, but vestigial is not explained in the dictionary that way. It is explained primarily as a dead end, which for the whale it is not. That is my only point.

All good.

[Roy]

@Rhythmic_supercat

There is nothing in the meaning about something that loses it’s original function and it becomes repurposed for another function, especially something so vital for species survival.

I’m glad people who accept evo aren’t in control of it.

Lets work things backwards. How long do you think a whale can keep reproducing before those important bones start changing back into flippers and legs?

These are the stories of evo That causes me to say I can only accept and believe.
Theirs your misconception

Complete lack of thought noted.

@Rhythmic_supercat didn’t pause to wonder whether the pelvis has that function in land animals too.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

@Roy

Complete lack of thought noted.

@Rhythmic_supercat didn’t pause to wonder whether the pelvis has that function in land animals too.

Are we done roy? Our conversation is degenerating. I’ve asked people how they personally verify scientific papers and the claims on them eg Pakicetus to ambulocetus. I’m fine if you can’t and you just accept and believe them. If you can personally can verify it, I’d like to see if I can do it as well. If you don’t want to send me your method to me, that’s fine as well. If there’s nothing constructive left to exchange, then I have to move on.
Thanks for writing to me, much appreciated

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Interesting to contemplate as I sit here doing Kegel exercises.

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

It is possible to analyze rocks in detail and look for evidence of how they have changed over time, e.g., what the rock was like before folding and how it folded. While this falls short of mathematical proof, it can build up a very strong case for the process. Computer simulations and lab experiments provide additional evidence of the process. Being a geologist, though not in structural geology (the field that would specifically study folds), I can see the amount of research that has gone into the current understanding. I can see how, despite plenty of individual mistakes, overall standard geology provides a coherent picture of earth history, which agrees with everything I observe in my own research on fossils and on comparing modern DNA between species.

The fact that the YEC claims included false statements tells you that they haven’t worked carefully and thoroughly; they are simply making up claims to support their unbiblical picture of Noah’s flood. Of course, in just making something up, it’s not impossible to happen to hit on a truth. But there is no reason to regard it as reliable. “I can’t test either, so they are equally good” is not a good position. “I can’t test either, so I don’t know” is legitimate. But it is possible to examine YEC claims overall and see that they are entirely designed to persuade people about their claims. There is no coherent picture; self-contradiction is common; claims are short excuses rather than serious efforts to understand how God’s creation works. Any time someone wants to actually find things in the ground, they rely on old-earth geology.

Given this situation, “well, one says one thing and one another” is not an accurate assessment; there is a major difference in the quality of the work. Of course, believing “one says one thing and one another” is a major propaganda goal of those promoting bad science. You can’t pick and choose whether you want to accept gravity. Even though we cannot see all of it, there is truth and falsehood, and we can identify what seems to be plausibly on the right track and what doesn’t.

[beaglelady]

@Rhythmic_supercat

I also gave the one from oxford. The point is, it says nothing about a vestigial bone or bones being repurposed for a different function.

The claimed vestigial bones do have a purpose. They can’t be claimed as vestigial. It doesn’t fit the oxford dictionary definition of what vestigial means.

We are speaking of vestigial in the scientific sense. And you only gave a subset of the Oxford dictionary’s definitions of “vestigial.” Creationists are notorious for quote-mining.

[beaglelady]

@Rhythmic_supercat

Scientist in this field based on the interpretation of the evidence will usually will agree with each other. Eg Pakicetus has a set of fossils and ambulocetus has it’s own set of fossils. There is approx a 1-2 million year gap between them so you have a massive amount of missing information there, so this is where the agreement comes in. Yes it maybe true that there is a link between the 2, I don’t deny that possibility, but I also would have to accept and agree with this conclusion. That is the belief, it isn’t a fact.

So if there is a gap in the fossil record, it is possible that some species accepted as whales are not at all related to whales. And it is also possible that God dropped new species of whales in the water, and simply made them look like whales. (And downloaded new instincts into their brains). Right?

[beaglelady]

@Rhythmic_supercat

Your fight with yec is between you and them, I don’t have any affiliation with them nor do I support all their claims.I’m not against them either.

No affiliation at all. None at all. Sure, we believe you.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

@paleomalacologist

It is possible to analyze rocks in detail and look for evidence of how they have changed over time, e.g., what the rock was like before folding and how it folded. While this falls short of mathematical proof, it can build up a very strong case for the process.

I understand that and I have never denied that method doesn’t net an accurate result… My main point I am trying get across with a lot of difficulty is, as a layman where I am currently situated, I can only accept and believe whatever stories or explanation for the folded rock be it fractured or not, old or yec explanations.

My beliefs have zero to do with yec for one, I don’t advocate for yec or old age earth. I became a believer many years before I even heard of yec and it’s position, maybe 15 to 20 yrs, as I wasn’t a church goer for a long time and I’m still not. I didn’t come across until about 5-10 yrs ago. I view yec and old age explanations the same. I just see 2 sides competing for people to follow them. Be that right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate.

@paleomalacologist

You can’t pick and choose whether you want to accept gravity. Even though we cannot see all of it, there is truth and falsehood, and we can identify what seems to be plausibly on the right track and what doesn’t.

Gravity is experienced today. When and how the rocks were folded are not. There’s a difference between those eg.
I’ll put my point across again, so you can understand my pov.
Regardless of how the bent rocks formed or when, I cannot verify and prove either claim personally. I don’t actually care when it happened or how it happened. I’m just focused on what I can personally verify and prove to be factual, after that I then move into what I have to accept and believe.
As it stands I can’t verify and prove any of the scientist work in this field, so my position for both yec and old age is accept and believe with a lot of trust involved, which I’m severely lacking of as both say they are telling the truth and the others are lying.
The next point is which one is a belief system and which one isn’t?

We both know the bible is a belief system, so I am already understanding that position and I’m free to choose if what they say is worth me believing in it or not. That part is clear.

Mainstream science is not a belief system so I’m constantly told, but I’m not in a position to confirm any scientist claims, so currently I have to go to a default position of accepting and believing what they say, which is a contradiction to what mainstream historical science claims to be.
To add, I don’t deny what mainstream science say is true, but I can only currently accept and believe it.

In my opinion, if we actually knew how the planet was formed,[not guessing] I think this would go a long way to answering some of these types of questions, but as we don’t see planets forming from nothing to something, then we will only be guessing at best and the debates will rage on, between fact and fiction. It’s more interesting when you watch everyone looking from the outside in.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

Good, i’m glad you do.

[Rhythmic_supercat]

@beaglelady

So if there is a gap in the fossil record

There’s no if, there is a gap. Pakecetus is dated at 49-50 mya and ambulocetus is approx 47-48-49 mya. I’m sure you can count the difference between the 2.
Not normally mentioned though is the fossil jaw bone of a fully fledged whale dated somewhere between 46 to 49 mya, depending on who you read, so this is a bit of a spanner in the works. Here’s the article. from evolution news. Discovery of “Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale” Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story | Evolution News

@beaglelady

So if there is a gap in the fossil record, it is possible that some species accepted as whales are not at all related to whales. And it is also possible that God dropped new species of whales in the water, and simply made them look like whales. (And downloaded new instincts into their brains). Right?

Just remember you are only reading what scientist say, which I do accept could be true, but how much of whale evo have you personally dug up and experimented and proven that one species of animal evolved to become a completely different species of animal with different anatomical feature [eg leg’s to flippers and nasal passage at the tip of the snout moving to the top of the head] that didn’t exist before… No-one has ever visually seen this happen.
I’ll say it again so you understand. It may of happened, and I do accept it as a possibility, but from my position I can only accept and believe it to be true. I can only accept and believe what the scientist say.

[peterkp (Peter Kirkpatrick)]

Hi, me again! I’ve been away for a couple of days and boy is there a lot to catch up on… I’m impressed that you’ve hung in there.

What stands out to me is your constant emphasis on the split between belief and verification. You said in some posts that other people here aren’t listening to you or understanding your position. I do understand that position, and so I think I get your point about accepting/believing things that you can’t verify. And I can see why you have been frustrated by some of the responses. Evidence for evolution is provided, but that simply piles up more data that for you is irrelevant.

So I’m going to try another approach. I think you are wrong, but it’s not your science that is wrong. It’s your Christianity. I believe that you have a bad understanding of what it means to believe.

You have quoted John 3:16 more than once: …So that whoever believes in him might not perish but have eternal life.

But I am still waiting for you to quote John 8:32: You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Or John 14:6: I am the way, the truth and the life. (Or any of the other 20 plus verses in John’s gospel alone that talk about the importance of truth.)

You have said more than once: The bible is a belief. And I say to you, What do you believe about it? For my part, I first of all believe that it is true. And I believe that my belief is based on good, rational, sufficient reasons. The story of Christianity that I find in the pages of the Bible makes sense. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t believe. A personal heart response is certainly required, but I absolutely refuse to separate my heart and my mind on this crucial matter. God calls us to a reasoned faith, the two parts working in harmony.

So my question to you is, What do you mean by the word belief, and how does it relate to reason and wisdom?