Amen. And falling on it makes a horribly painful injury that lasts forever. Talk about a pain in the butt.
The coccyx can also be a terrible place for bedsores when you’re elderly and bedridden.
Isn’t the issue what is true and what is not? If my ten year old grandson says he found a beaver skull, that does not make it false. In fact, it was true.
So what is true about what Halley said, and what do you find to be false?
Also, you included snark, but it seems you left out the part that Keaton Halley also has a Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. I’ll let you look that up to see what that entails.
But again, you are defining what gets to count as knowledge, and Biola may not meet your standards. Nor would their Masters in Science and Religion, because they do not teach evolution.
All I know is that my bum hurts like hell from the wonderfully designed coccyx. And speaking of vestigial structures, What do you make of the vestigial dewclaws on dogs and cattle?
The 39-credit program has 2 electives with scientific content: “Modern Physics, Cosmology, and Design,” and “Darwin, Evolution, and Design.” These courses entail zero labwork but plenty of discussion of apologetics. At best, Halley gained little more than a passing acquaintance with methodologies and standards in the fields of physics and paleontology/biology.
Due to the substantial attention given to apologetics, Halley’s knowledge of the coccyx and paleontology from that course of study is likely no greater than that of an undergrad who has completed one or two science courses.
His coursework was certainly less-than-optimal preparation for gaining a deep understanding of the scientific branches of paleontology and evolutionary biology, in my opinion. It certainly does not qualify him to render expert opinion on subtle questions in the fields.
Do you think otherwise, Craig?
Best,
Chris
EDIT: The program also has electives in philosophy of science, but these would not expose him to methodologies and standards except in the broadest sense. I am quite certain that you cannot emerge from the program with an ability to give a statement on the role of the coccyx that is more credible than the observations of a physician like @jpm with decades of experience.
4 Likes
One more thing among many that YECs don’t recognize in their claiming that evolution is a conspiracy among biologists is that all of physics must be conspiratorial, too.
The so-called (by YECs) ‘secular’ hard sciences* all concur and attest to the antiquity of the universe. They share much of the mathematics, measuring tools and techniques and technologies, and these are the same sciences that put men on the moon. (They also brought us the atomic and hydrogen bombs. Feel free to argue with THEM. 
)
The physical and earth hard sciences and their subcategories that ALL attest to the antiquity of the earth and the universe would have all advanced to where they are today even if the concept of biological evolution had never been dreamt of, or even if the life sciences did not exist.
*Astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, elementary/high energy particle physics, planetary science, geology, physical geography, oceanography, meteorology, hydrology, climatology, …and more.
2 Likes
Although young-earth sources do regularly cite old-earth sources, the citations are rarely honest. First, the source being cited is routinely not represented accurately. Michael Roberts slogged through over 100 of Woodmorappe’s citations of supposedly problematic radiometric dates without finding a single valid problem. Creation Moments cited an article claiming that it showed that the transition from toothed ancestors to baleen whales was a problem. But the article actually stated that the transition had been a problem before the finding of the transitional fossil that the article was about. Secondly, there is no honest effort to thoroughly research the old-earth literature to test the claims; it’s merely cherry-picking what seems suitable for distorting out of context into apparent support for a young-earth model. Unless you only rely on the young-earth literature, you will quickly see that creation science is merely propaganda and does not actually reflect a serious effort to understand how the universe works. This is why, for example, that no oil or gas or other geological resources have ever been found by using young-earth models. They don’t even tell you where to look - there is no consistent framework that could be used to identify what layers are likely to be productive. Even the many young-earthers working in the oil industry use old-earth models when it comes to actually finding anything. Every time you use oil or gas or plastic or nylon or metal or brick or concrete or other geologically-derived resources, you are benefitting form the effectiveness of old-earth models.
Although there are some tradeoffs between intensity and time, the examples already mentioned show that they are not inherently equal. For example, it is true that decaying organic material can be broken down into oil or gas somewhat faster if it is under higher heat and/or pressure. But heat and pressure affect other things as well. It’s possible to determine amounts of heat and pressure experienced by rock layers, based on the types of minerals present and the degree of alteration of the materials present.
The effects of floods, tsunamis, and other proposed agents for flood geology models can be observed and compared to the geologic record. By the late 1700’s, it was clear that sedimentary rock layers generally matched the slowly depositing sand and mud that can be found today, though with occasional layers that seemed different. Even earlier, it was clear that the series of layers did not match what could be produced by a single brief, massive flood. (The idea of layers being slowly produced by a gradually retreating once-global ocean took longer to refute.) Excessive resistance to catastrophic causes and excessive invoking of catastrophic causes can be found at various points in the history of geology; any claim must be tested against the evidence. For example, the erosion of canyons into the edge of the continental shelves cannot be caused by a global flood. They reflect river erosion during lowered sea level (sometimes much lower, in the case of those around the Mediterranean), coupled with mass wasting events (such as landslides).
The inselbergs and monandnocks have experienced lots of erosion, just as the surrounding areas have; because of being harder, they have eroded more slowly. The ridges in the county I live in, and several of the mountains in this part of the state are mostly areas rich in quartz, and thus have eroded more slowly. A smaller-scale, much faster example comes form the bricks along the edge f the building where I work. The sand and gravel in the bricks are tending to stick out as the baked clay erodes away where the brick gets all the drips off the roof hitting it. It’s not just hardness (and hardness is scratch- or dent-resistance, not breakability). Chemical resistance may be more important. Soapstone tends to be left on the surface as boulders while the surrounding rock erodes away. It’s largely talc, with a hardness of 1, but it’s chemically so resistant that it has been used for lab countertops. Quartz is both chemically and physically resistant, so it holds up well in most environments. I’m in the southeastern US, so there’s plenty of hot and wet weather, making chemical breakdown of rock very important. Drier areas have different patterns of rock types being left behind.
If the erosional remnants were produced by a global flood, such patterns should not be found.
There is confusion in the claims about quartzite being carried away form the Rocky Mountains, so I’m not certain just what the actual evidence is. Sand is mostly quartz, so the reference to softer rocks is inaccurate. Such inaccuracy in irrelevant details does not inspire confidence in the geological merit of the argument. I would guess that either pebbles of quartzite eroded from the Rocky Mountains or quartzite containing sand grains that eroded from the Rocky Mountains might have been what was actually found. An important detail omitted is how the pebbles or sand can be identified as coming from the Rockies. First, that would inform the range of possible geological models. Which layer does it come from and when was it first exposed and available for erosion? Most of the mountain ranges west of the Rockies are rather young, geologically. [Note: these considerations would apply to assessing possible young-earth or old-earth models.] Second, many of the features that would be useful for identifying the origin of pebbles or grains reflect an old earth, such as radiometric dating (if it were sped up, there should not be distinctive dates for different layers, but rather a big blur) or the degree of metamorphic alteration. Pebbles can wash downstream without exceptionally high water speeds. The Missoula floods certainly carried some rock downstream, but so does the ordinary flow of the Snake River, for example.
Comparison of geological claims from young-earth sources versus the actual geologic evidence gives no reason to trust young-earth claims. If there is enough detail, I can look it up and find out precisely what the evidence is, but experience shows that “Here’s evidence for a young earth” and “Here’s a photo of Bigfoot and Elvis riding the Loch Ness Monster” have similar promise of turning out to be authentic.
5 Likes
This applies here, as well:
1 Like
Another key factor in the acceptance of heliocentrism was the developing of Newton’s law of gravity. Treating the sun as the center worked great mathematically. However, that regrettably led to a popular tendency to look for simple models of how everything else worked, with an inadequate commitment to testing against the evidence. As you get farther from physics, accurate models tend to be less and less simple.
2 Likes
This is worth highlighting!
Thanks for the helpful perspective, David!
I’m hoping we can talk about dewclaws, found on various species, which most consider vestigial toes.
Here’s a picture of dewclaws on a goat (left) and cow (right). They are smaller and higher than the functional hooves and they don’t even touch the ground. Would like an explanation if you don’t consider them vestigial.
(Your dog might have dewclaws also – a toe with a nail that doesn’t touch the ground)
3 Likes
The Grand Canyon does, as discussed before. You don’t get a single, meandering channel from a catastrophic flood.
2 Likes
It looks more and more like a magical flood, doesn’t it?
You might want to read, A receding Flood scenario for the origin of the Grand Canyon, Peter Scheele, Journal of Creation, 24(3) 106-116, December 2010. Also "Sheet erosion in the Grand Canyon area in How Noah’s Flood Shaped the World, Oard and Reed, pages 115 to 116 and chapter 10 on the channelized flow. Of course, the Grand Canyon is not a single meandering channel, but has many side canyons which also beg to be explained, which Oard and Reed do. The research was not easy and took many years, but the explanation is simple and easy.
In the Grand Canyon, the side channels are perpendicular to the main channel which is inconsistent with catastrophic flooding. This is born out by the Channeled Scablands which has braided channels running parallel to one another:
4 Likes
Did you see my post about dewclaws?
1 Like
So what about Oard, Reed, and Scheele’s hypothesis did you find unconvincing? You start with sheet flow, then go to channelized flow.
And Oard has researched the Missoula Flood extensively and in relation to the Genesis Flood. If you are interested, you can read his book, The Missoula Flood Controversy and the Genesis Flood. It is published by the Creation Research Society and was reviewed by several others prior to publication. It will give you a different hypothesis from a different point of view or worldview.
In view of our discussion, I am encouraged to read the book again. It has been several years, and the details have faded in my memory.
To carve that deep of a channel quickly you need fast flow. If you have fast flow then you won’t have a single channel with meanders. It’s that simple.
5 Likes
Genesis 1 tells us that all creatures were created “good” and “very good.” Certainly there has been genetic deterioration since God’s original creation, including loss of function, which meets the definition of vestigial. But this loss of function, and generally a loss of genetic information is demonstration of genetic entropy or devolution, not leftover detritus from an evolutionary process and “proof” of evolution.
Unless, of course, the water during the channelized flow is entering from several different points.