Folded rocks question

I appreciate your concern here Christy, and I would agree that we should assume good faith wherever possible in the interests of gracious dialogue. For that reason, I tend to view most of the examples on the TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project as mere misunderstandings than actual deliberate misrepresentations – certainly, half of them look to me like that is even the most likely explanation.

However, some cases are clear cut. I don’t think that lying is entirely a state of mind. Rather, lying is making claims that you know, or should reasonably be expected to know, to be untrue.

Teachers, subject matter experts, academics and researchers need to be held to a higher standard of accountability in this respect. James 3:1 tells us that teachers will be judged more strictly, and with good reason. They have a responsibility and a duty to fact-check what they are teaching carefully and diligently. They are in a position of trust certifying that they know what they are talking about and that they are conducting the necessary due diligence in fact-checking their claims. Making demonstrably false claims may just be ignorance on the part of the lay person, but for teachers it is an abrogation of their professional responsibilities – and as such, a breach of trust.

Andrew Snelling is a PhD geologist. He conducts professional geological research and has published in mainstream scientific journals on the subject. He is also acting professionally as a teacher and communicator of geology. He has visited this particular rock formation on numerous occasions. Any suggestion that he was unaware of those fractures stretches credibility to breaking point. For him to claim that they do not exist – and to fail to provide a satisfactory account for why he made such a claim – is simply inexcusable. In any other area of science, such a claim would result in a career change to flipping burgers in McDonald’s at best.


I agree with your assessment of the facts of the situation. But as you have just demonstrated, there are ways to represent those facts so that it comes across more as accountability than an attack or an accusation. I don’t think that in this case accusations of dishonesty are unwarranted or unfair. They just don’t promote dialogue, which would be the official aim of BioLogos and I was asked about their “view.”


Hello Chris,

I’m only able to answer with logic.

If fallen, careless man was in charge of creating instead of God, the scenario you mentioned would probably have been true and much worse with all other bacteria considered. But when we look at the magnificent wonders of creation around us beyond the power of man even in this fallen world, can’t we thus conclude that God has everything in control and would have thus prevent the scenario you suggested? The out of control state came only after the fall.

Shouldn’t we always be careful not to allow ourselves to fall into temptations to encumber ourselves with any of thousands of possible questions about ultra-minute details by which we may entangle ourselves trying to find answers only to draw us away from God’s intended simple message for us? Caution Please. Do we remember how the tempter pulled Eve off track?

As you mentioned, something (a plant) must die to be eaten as food. I ‘m only able to answer by saying that the Bible speaks of life as in the blood of which plants do not have. Plants are living organisms photosynthesized from raw materials from the ground to provide food for animal life.

The fact that things were described as very good implies nothing out of control. It is written, “Know ye that the Lord if God.” Although a captain may betray the trust of those on his ship for expertise to preserve life in a time of danger, it’s impossible for “Captain” God to fail.

The person that said this did so to explain how science is misused to draw away from knowledge of and trust in God as ultimate authority with the use of a false world view. Hence the humanistic “glasses.” This counters the effort of the church of the Living God to spread the truth of God and His authority and the salvation and redemption of mankind throughout the dying world.

Genetic research may be done by anyone whether he believes God created or not. But aquired knowledge and its use is the thing that may possibly be corrupted by the humanistic glasses. Although scientific research may be done by an individual whether he has background knowledge of God or not, what would stop him from using the gained knowledge for evil purposes without the godly knowledge?

The three things you mentioned above are the way knowledge may be expressed, not interpreted.

We learned these things from observation and interpretations of the observations. But who observed millions of years of evolution? With that impossible, what scientific law support evolution to assure us its true? What repeatable scientific experiment supports it? I can give you two scientific laws that disprove evolution even though only one is sufficient.

Does evolution occur by chance? The chances are 1 in 10 to triple-diget exponents for a simple cell. Does evolution occur if given sufficient time? Time brings decay. Although a dead rabbit has everything needed for life at the time of death, may we expect its body to improve over time to receive life again?

I have more coming up.

You seem to be suggesting that the Genesis creation account should not be subject to the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. I actually agree with this.

Who observed the tall oak at the edge of the forest before my house was built? Yet when lightning struck it down, I was able to tell its age by the number of growth rings.

This assertion comes with no mathematical basis. If you could show the calculations you used to derive the number, we could have a sensible discussion about it. At the moment, sensible discussion is not possible.



Hello Jim,

But the big Big Bang has also been vastly disproven repeatedly. It depends on who we believe and heed. There is no legitimate debate against Biblical truth even though debates yet continue.

Are accurate mathematical answers even possible when dealing with the vastness of time and of the universe? Scientists are not unanimous on the big bang. Serious flaws have been found and we have our choice as to who to heed or ignore.

The raging battle is not between, but over you and me as it consumes our energy and may be settled only with our surrender to God or Scientism. Which? Two masters cannot be served. There’s always opposition to draw away from God’s truth.

Here are helpful articles:

Yes, there are contrary articles as long as there’s opposition to God.


Hello Chris,

Aren’t you able to appreciate God by what He did around us and that he is holding your breath in His hand? Please be careful.

Have you forgotten the law of probability? Even common sense tells us points to evolutionary impossibility.

Below is only one of many articles speaking of probability that contains much math that you are looking for.
Try this one:


Sorry Earl, but that’s just patent nonsense. The Big Bang has not been disproven by a long shot. Yes, there may be unanswered questions about the Big Bang, such as fine tuning or the flatness problem, or things whose proposed answers may seem unsatisfactory to some people, such as inflation, but uncertainty about the details does not falsify the bigger picture. If it did, then we could argue that volcanic eruptions do not happen because nobody knows how to predict them.

In any case, even if the Big Bang were to be falsified, that still would not come anywhere close to reducing the age of the universe to six thousand years. That would require a complete rewrite of everything we know about physics, chemistry, biology and even mathematics.

The article comes out with the “scientists are always changing their minds” canard:

Scientific theories are always changing. What seems to fit a few facts in one generation may be replaced by a totally different view which fits those facts and even more.

It is another magic shibboleth that clueless or dishonest antiscientists trot out to try to dismiss any and every scientific finding that they don’t like. It simply doesn’t work that way in reality. Scientists do not just arbitrarily change their minds to suit the latest prevailing fashion. They refine their theories to accommodate better data and more precise measurement techniques. Scientific findings do not swing about all over the place from one theory to another; on the contrary, they are repeatedly seen to converge on a more detailed consensus.

Seriously, if “scientists are always changing their minds” were a reasonable answer to anything, then we would be able to propose that scientists could one day admit to us that the earth is flat. That’s simply not going to happen.


Hi Earl - Hope this little post finds you doing well and doing good. The AiG article on probabilities makes the argument that a post facto specification is not inconsistent with an event with infinitesimal probability. I agree. What the article author fails to realize is that he falls into the trap he sets. The specification for a particular protein is indeed post facto, thus the purported low probability is not problematic. In other words, the burden on the scientific mechanism is only to explain the existence of any protein–not the existence of a particular amino acid sequence.

Also, biology researchers have learned that there are mechanisms that explain homochirality. In other words, the chirality of an amino acid is not at all like an independent coin flip.

Finally, the origin of life question is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Just as the big bang theory does not fail just because it cannot specify what was happening before the BB, the theory of the evolution of life does not fail if it cannot specify what was happening before life existed on earth. All it has to do is explain how early life evolved over billions of years to its present form, and it does this very well.



Hi Guys,

I think I shared much at this point and I know that you guys had your fill of my hounding you about evolution. So here are a few more things I would like to share and I will be done unless any of you desire more.

But first I will answer the following posts.

Scientists do not change their minds about what’s found true because the truth is the truth. The changes occur about supposed truths that were not provable or disproved. Think for example about “junk” DNA that was found to be far from junk and about the appendix that was thought useless until found otherwise, thus causing the changes. That’s what the creationists of the sight you spoke of were saying.

What’s concrete about the Big Bang?

The Creation / evolution battle is a battle between masters that want our hearts. Because of my trust in God, you have my trust that God will bring you through.

But doesn’t it take lots of particular amino acid sequences for even a primative cell?

But where was it specified in the Document (the Bible) that life evolved over billions of years? Isn’t the document the thing that the Judge wants to base His decisions on? I only know that it’s documented that life began by the word of God. Isn’t that sufficient?

Why the overwhelming priority to defend evolution? Doesn’t that reflect the master that the heart is serving? Doesn’t this always require careful prayerful analysis of the heart?

To the topic:

Please visit the following link and look no further. Take a snapshot of the picture in your mind.

It’s “just” a tree. Pretend that I use a little bit of computer expertise to paint very good, juicy looking edible fruit that’s good for you on the tree and then encourage you to always include good fresh fruit in your diet for the best possible health. (I was paid a pretty penny to do the painting).

.             (SWITCH!)

I would then convince you of the “FACT” that your dependence on the tree is indispensable and thus essential. You MUST have its fruit for good science - uh - uh - I mean for your good health! Whoever tries to discourage you from eating of that tree is “stupid, nutty,” and a “hater” of nutrition! Avoid him at ALL cost!!

I told you of the “pros” of the tree but as an honest crook, I will also tell you the cons. The links below contain info about the - uh - uh - tree.

This link shows adverse effects in a simple conversation about how a new believer in the faith may be easily sidetracked.

This link also talked about evolution and the political left

“Many important political figures on the left have never publicized their views on biology, and so their opinions of evolutionary theory are unknown. To some extent, Marxists are the exception. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin supported Darwin’s evolutionary theory. Marx even sent Darwin a copy of his book Das Kapital, though Darwin never wrote back to him. Karl Marx’s work was based on a material view of the world that showed natural causes and effects for all aspects of human society and economy. He recognized that Darwin’s work provided a similar material explanation for all of nature, thus supporting Marx’s worldview.”

“What’s wrong with this picture? More blatantly than most, it typifies the racism inherent in a lot of human evolutionary progressions. Did you notice that the transitional hominid just before the end (second from right) looks like a modern-day African (albeit a bit scruffier), while the pinnacle of human evolution is a ‘white’ European-looking man? Why is a white person as a representative of modern humans, when a majority of the world’s population has medium-brown skin, eyes, and hair coloration? The subtle message here is that lighter skin means that the individual is more evolved.”

What are the social consequences of . . . ?

  1. Animal-like Behavior. If humans descended from animals, why shouldn’t humans behave like animals?
  2. Meaninglessness. If evolution happened, why believe that life has any purpose other than to reproduce and pass on your genes? 1
    Response: Evolution did not happen. Your life has purpose and hope. God does not make mistakes. You are not an accident.
  3. Good vs. Evil. If nature is all there is, why believe there is good and evil?

More Links:

'Scuse me guys. The links above were about another kind of “tree.” But this one is on topic -

The manchineel tree that I led (or misled?) you to with great confidence that you would follow is so dangerous that you don’t even want its shade and if burned, its smoke will blind you. Its fruit (none of what I painted) is like a small apple and is sweet tasting but extremely toxic and the milky sap burns skin and even the paint on a car. Don’t seek shelter under it when it rains!

This tree only endangers the body.

I must also admit that something rubbed off on me. As I express it, judge whether it’s good or bad. I will use the “right” (wrong) word to make you desire instead of detesting what’s being brought to you.

If any of you find yourselves in need of a wuppin, don’t fret. Look forward for it! It’s a “FACT” that each lick from the horsewhip will be SOOthing to your backs! You will LUV it! I just emulated the tendency to mix bitter water with sweet water to expect sweeter water. If it works for evolutionist, why not for me?

Please excuse me for stepping on your toes. Another major disadvantage of evolutionary thinking is that it encourages grudges toward those that oppose it. Please don’t forget,

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world (1 John 4:1).”

I think I have shared a plenty by now. Take care.


Earl, thank you for sharing. It certainly points out how we all can be guilty of selfish thinking, and misuse and twist truth and good for selfish advancement. We all need to keep a humble attitude as we look at such things.
For every example you gave, it is easy to add a dozen more where we as a people have failed, and of course those failures are evident on all sides of the argument.


Only if you assume the current cell is the only possible way a cell could be constructed. There is nothing that requires this to be true. So as Chris says the mechanism only has to explain the existence of any protein.

1 Like

The cosmic microwave background radiation. Galaxies at a distance of approximately 13B light-years. A universe that has been expanding as far back as the eye can see, all the way to the CMBR.

I get that you’re not a professional astronomer, my friend @Ecerotops. You might consider learning something about the subject, rather than making assertions that contradict vast catalogs of astronomical facts that have been gathered over recent decades.

Biology is no different than physics, chemistry, astronomy, meteorology, or computer science. You wrote your little post to this forum using the fruits of several different branches of science (physics, chemistry, and computer science for sure). All of that knowledge was necessary to build the computing device you used.

Now I know some technologists (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos) that take their leadership in technology as license to do some evil things, like hurl insults at cave rescuers or divorce a faithful wife. But do you, Earl, as a consequence of this abuse condemn the whole enterprise? Or do you continue to use the fruits of their effort for good, doing things like posting to this forum?

Biology is the same way.Just as we do not abandon technology because some technologists use it as occasion for atheism, let us not abandon biology because some biologists use it as occasion for atheism. Let’s put evolution to good use, just as we endeavor to put technology to good use. The insights of evolution are important to cancer research, to fighting tropical diseases, and to being good stewards of the ecosystems in which we live.

Like any product of human effort, science can become an idol. But we don’t stop using money just because it is the root of all sorts of evil, and we don’t stop spending romantic time with our spouses just because sex can go off the rails. And we don’t stop doing biology research just because some atheists misuse it.

So no, the struggle is not between a branch of science and God; the struggle is between human pride and God. Farmers can be tempted to idolatry–think of Jesus’ parable of the landowner whose crops were so bountiful!–but we don’t tell farmers to stop farming. Instead, we encourage them to recognize that their crops are the fruit not only of their hard work and knowledge, but also of God’s grace and providence. Likewise, we ought to encourage biologists to see their findings as the fruit not only of their hard work and knowledge, but of God’s grace and providence that have given us life, breath, and reason.

Your gracious spirit is surpassed only by your humility.



The whole point, Earl, is that the scientific consensus only changes in response to evidence. You can’t just use “scientists are always changing their minds” as a magic shibboleth to dismiss any and every scientific finding that you don’t like.

The age of the earth does not fall into that category. Nor, for that matter, does universal common ancestry.

I’m not all that familiar with “junk” DNA. But even if it can be shown that “junk” DNA is not junk after all, that does not reduce the age of the earth from 4.5 billion years, and it does not falsify universal common ancestry for all life on earth.

Through from what to what? From freedom in Christ Jesus to the bondage of nonsense about Noah having had dinosaurs on board the Ark?


Hello Chris. You’re next, Jim.

I’m not an astronomer let alone a professional astronomer. But the knowledge I share with you is from those that are. But don’t you also recognize their authority as as scientists despite their opposing stance? With science defined in the dictionary as knowledge, none of it is against God who is the source of knowledge. I hope these links will help:

Deep-Space Objects Are Young

One comment I will add is how I very well appreciate creationist scientists as they clearly share knowledge of the glory of God in all the natural things around us.

I very much appreciate the fruit of scientific effort and do not condemn it. I only condemn the misuse of it

Thank you. Of course the struggle is not between science and God, but human pride as you say. Neither is here’s any struggle between any branch of science and God as long as its data is truthful. All of the sciences showcase the glory of God. The fruit of biological science is to be well appreciated. It thus behooves us to allow none of predious scientific knowledge to cloth a wolf that may sneak among us.

Thank you for your complement. I appreciate it! Did my remark give you a good laugh?

Hello Jim,

[quote=“Jammycakes, post:82, topic:40884, full:true”]

The whole point, Earl, is that the scientific consensus only changes in response to evidence. You can’t just use “scientists are always changing their minds” as a magic shibboleth to dismiss any and every scientific finding that you don’t like.

I have to disagree with you on that. The age-of-the earth and universal common ancestry issues are issues of controversy that only encourage doubt against the Bible whose abundant evidence all around us tend to be ignored. Is our faith in the first books of the Perfect Law of Liberty or in men that make themselves appear to speak with the authority of science even though they are not? Read on to an upcoming link.

[quote=“Jammycakes, post:82 topic:40884”]

Is your faith in God’s documented word or in fallible man’s “wisdom?” Did God really say? Are the first chapters in Genesis really from God? Do you remember what happened to Eve? Here’s a link

Link Title: Origins - Millions of Years: Where did the idea come from?

I thought I spoke well of you with this statement.

What’s the problem with Noah’s having dinosaurs on the ark? Is it the 65 megannum problem? Are you aware that native Americans and people of cultures around the world have depictions of dinosaur like creatures? Where did they get the idea to draw and craft such images? Why do dragons familiar to those of different cultures tend to have basically similar reptilian characteristics? Why may we think the Chinese are so familiar with dragons? Should we think that the images were invented?

Here are several links.

Why are there depictions of dinosaurs that supposedly died 65 million years ago?

Of course there are sights that contradict. Here’s one.

I hope these are helpful.


Earl, your post was flagged as inappropriate as it is reminiscent of a disreputable technique called the Gish Gallop. That is when someone overloads the argument with so much fluff that no one cares to respond to it. If you are interested in conversation, make one or two points rather than a dozen links to old arguments. I will let the post stand intact as a monument to how not to encourage dialogue, but future posts of this nature will be deleted.

1 Like

OK. I’ll remember.

The link above references the work of Halton Arp, who appears to be an atheist astronomer who was a bit of a maverick in that he was a prominent standard bearer for the steady theory of cosmology which implied that the universe is infinitely old. I would like to hear your own personal take on how you think this supports your position on a young universe.

1 Like

Stop right there Earl. This is where Literal Six Day Young Earth Creationism turns toxic. The accusation that anyone who isn’t prepared to be spoon fed Ken Ham’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is “speaking with the voice of the serpent”. It is passive-aggressive, hostile, and Pharisaical.

You can’t just quote mine Genesis 3:1 like that and take the serpent’s words to Eve out of context to shut down discussion. The Bible tells us that we are to test everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for examining the Scriptures carefully to check whether Paul said was true.

Of course we need to check and make sure that we heard and understood God correctly. To fail to do so is to give a free pass to all sorts of liars and deceivers. There’s no end to the number of cults and heresies that you could introduce by attempting to shut down discussion that way.

And yes, the first chapters of Genesis really are from God. But the LSDYEC cartoon caricature of them with a thick layer of science fiction slathered on top is not.


First, humans are inventive, so they well could be made-up. Second, just because people only started systematically studying and cataloging fossils a couple hundred years ago does not mean no fossils were ever found before then. Ancient peoples could and did find dinosaur fossils and wonder what they had looked like in life.

What’s the problem with Noah’s having dinosaurs on the ark? I mean, if you lean hard enough into with God, all things are possible, no one’s going to be able to dissuade you, but you have to stick a whole lot of words that aren’t from God into the story to even kind-of justify it, and it winds up flying in the face of just about everything we know about animals. And boats. And storms. And the earth. And people. And history.

But hey, keep believing what you want, I guess.

1 Like

I wrote an article just for people like you.

Are you familiar at all with Adrienne Mayor? She basically started the whole branch of investigation called geomythology.