MrDarwin

After Scigirl raises the problems of explaining the fossil record with a global flood, and in particular the problem of the ordering of fossils, Douglas replies with the broad claim:

Well, I'm still waiting for some YEC to enlighten me as to why "the fossil remains and geologic layers are better explained by a global catastrophe than by "millions of years" of time". Clearly I'm missing something so obvious that it need not be explained.

ps418

According to Douglas:

"Young Earth Creationism" does not depend solely on Biblical testimony. There are "testable" aspects, such as whether a global Flood occurred (the fossil remains and geologic layers are better explained by a global catastrophe than by "millions of years" of time), and whether some of the Earth's ecosystems are better explained through a "young" or an "old" Earth age.

Indeed young-earthism and flood geology can both be put to the test, and that's how I know that both hypotheses are false. Since there is no evidence whatsoever for a young-earth or a recent global flood, and overwhelming evidence against a young earth and a recent global flood, YEC does in fact seem to depend solely on inferences from the text of Genesis.

Maybe when Douglas returns he'd like to move beyond bare claims and actually debate the facts of the issue. If so, I'd be happy to oblige.

Patrick

faded_Glory

Douglas has stated in a previous post that he has little knowledge of, nor too much interest in, the Earth sciences. It is therefore a safe bet that he will fall back on the usual creationist 'evidence' such as:

- Mt. St Helens 'proves' that sediments are deposited in days, not in thousands of years;

- fossil tree trunks buried in sediment show that sediment is deposited 'in a very short time';

- the same for polystrate fossils;

- the time range of fossils is frequenty increased, so 'in reality all fossils occur at all levels, they just haven't been found yet';

- the Geological Column 'doesn't exist anywhere on Earth';

- there are plenty of exceptions to the ordered sequence of fossils, and 'the overthrust explanation is ad-hoc and wrong'

- radiometric dating of recent lavas 'showed them to be thousands of years old, therefore radiometric dating is wrong';

- radiometric dating of young lavas at the top of the grand Canyon 'showed the same age as lavas deep down in the Canyon sequence';

- Dr. Baumgardner, a well-respected geophysicist at Los Alamos, has shown with his computer program that continental drift was 'runaway' during the flood, and that 'the opening of the Atlantic only took a few weeks';

- The Greenland Ice Sheet only took a few hundred years to build up, as evidence by WW2 aircraft already buried deep in the Ice after only several years;

- etc. etc....

See? Who needs Douglas? I can do the whole bloody debate on my own

And please, I prefer 'faded'

fG

ps418

In his most recent post, Douglas wrote:

Apparently, they have. (See my above answer.) Also, had you ever heard of a dinosaur fossil which "spanned" several "million" years of the geological record? That is, there have been single dinosaur fossils found which would imply, if the standard "evolutionary" interpretation of the geologic record is correct, that it had taken several million years to fossilize.


Douglas

Oh, really? Since you did not attempt to do so in your post to Scigirl, I challenge you to substantiate it now, for my benefit. I want references containing at least the following information:

1. Where, precisely, is the fossil you are referring to (what formation, what section locality), and where can I find information on it, ideally pictures?

2. What stratigraphic data lead you to believe that the strata encasing said fossil represents "millions of years," according the "standard evolutionary interpretation of the geologic record." For instance, is the bottom of the fossil entombed in sediments attributed to one geologic period, penetrating overlying strata attributed to a subsequent geologic period?

I understand you're busy, so I'll be patient. For the sake of your own credibility, though, you need to substantiate your claim with the relevant, requisite information.

Patrick

MrDarwin

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick. Douglas has already made it abundantly clear that he has no interest, um I mean doesn't have the time, to follow up on or substantiate any of the huge number of assertions he makes.

And then he wonders why we become impatient or even rude with him.

RufusAtticus

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Someone needs a big dose of reality!

Please, Douglas, explain to us your special power that allows your ignorance to discern valid science. In going against all logic, you have solidified your kook-dom.

-RvFvS

[ December 25, 2001: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Synaesthesia

I believe Douglas is referring to the so-called “polsystrate” fossils. This objection has apparently been out of date for over 100 years.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html</a>

Douglas should at least pretend to do even rudimentary research. He hasn’t demonstrated a good understanding of what evolution is, let alone what evidence or theory is. I wonder how anyone expects to have a substantive debate with him if he doesn’t even make an attempt to develop a more sophisticated understanding- that is, any understanding at all- of these basic concepts?

ps418

Oh yes, I knew that this is what he was referring to. In fact, Ive researched the issue pretty thoroughly (see for instance my article <a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/aigcoal.htm" target="_blank">Aig on coal</a>). Every single case I've examined fails to conform to what Douglas and other creationists have asserted ("span millions of years, according to the evolutionary timescale").

I'm going to give Douglas the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he knows of truly problematic example that I should look into. I highly doubt it, though. Either way he needs to back up his claim with facts, especially if he will use such facts in a debate.

Patrick

Christopher Lord

I would like to take this out for a beating:
This is a profound flaw with the argument. Examples of 'random generation of information via selection' is EVERYWHERE.

Off the top of my head, Genetic Algorithims are used to solve complex problems. These algorithims mimic natural selection by creating random solutions (the more random the better, see next paragraph) and then select the best one each iteration. After 50,000 loops, very successful genomes are developed. If you then change the problem, the neat thing is that genome will change into one more adept at the new problem.

You would think that the more random the input, the poorer the output. The inverse is true. The better the randomness, the faster the system can generate a solution. This refutes any argument that the computer is injecting order on the problem.

This is real hard math. It is provable, and many thousand generations go by in a second. I have NEVER seen a creationist address this.

Second, one need not even look at computers to see random-generated information. A Crystal is generated randomly with a selection filter. The atoms move randomly but are 'selected' onto the crystal.

Obviously information can come from randomness. All that is needed is something to select a result with some predictability. Be that the best-surviving, the right atom for an open space, or the best-scoring solution to a problem in a GA.

ps418

Douglas asked:

The Evolution of Feathers
The evolution of bird feathers, if it occurred, could be considered an instance of "macroevolution" (the evolution of a "novel" feature). Bird feathers are interesting, in that they are composed of interconnected "hooks" (I'll have to find a link to a picture). How, exactly, would "microevolution" (comprising, of course, "random mutations plus natural selection") account for the development of bird feathers, especially the interconnected hooks?

As feathers were "evolving", what would have been the "survival advantage" of these hooks, expecially considering that they had to develop before there was flight, since it is widely held among evolutionists that birds evolved from feathered, flightless, dinosaurs (or reptiles, or ancestors of these)?

A plausible hypothesis is structural stability and/or better insulation properties. Barbs would keep the filaments arranged in a manner that retains heat more effectively. Incidentally, the same qualities that make feathers good insulators would also make them more effective at displacing air during a flight stroke.

The only feature of feathers that seems to be inexplicable for anything other than flight would be the asymmetry of flight feathers. The "bird-like dinos" such as Caudipteryx possessed symmetrical feathers that would not have been very effective for flight.