ID/Creationism - How fast were extinctions?

[H3LL]

Re: flood

....I certainly cannot scientifically prove a flood....

So we have:

Gap in my knowledge = God did it

It saves all that tiresome reading and is sooo easy.

Instead of the usual attack evolution from a position of ignorance that we are very used to here I would like to pose a favourite one of my own. (see signature).

You claim what you say is science (it isn't BTW). Science is a method used to predict observable events among other things.

Would you be so kind as to inform us of any practical use or any predictions that your so-called "science" can make.

If it helps, you can show us how your "science" deals with with what is stated here:

The Molecular Sequence Evidence

Please feel free to show us how your "science" would make the predictions or quote any biblical passage that have an alternative solution.

If not, you make my signature true.

 

[Nick Harman]

Plate Tectonics

I have heard of the theory of plate techtonics. Many biblical creationists believe in plate techtonics but it is a catastrophic model, rather than the evolutionist fairy tale of millions and millions of years. Time is the key to evolutionary science. You believe in things that can not be observed as do I. The difference is that biblical creationists have a historical record to interpret the evidence. You say I use the flood or God did it to explain everything, well your ideas are rationalized by millions and millions of years to explain why things that will never be observed are true. The fossil record does not support slow changes because there are no intermediate fossils. That is why one of your high priests Stephen Gould had to switch to punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of fossil evidence. There is nothing wrong with having different views. Among biblical creationists (not comprimised creationists, I don't speak for them while they are still sincere christians) there are different views on things such as plate techtonics, continental drift, etc. My point is that you all imply that evolution is a closed deal, it is a fact, but actually it is severely flawed. All for now and probably the rest of the day. See you all tomorrow.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick Harman

 

[Nick Harman]

soft tissue

I am impressed with the evolutionist faith to believe soft tissue survived 70 million years. First time rbc's were found, you all were in denial, now you have had to accept it when it is found with soft tissue.

In Christ,
Nick

 

[MRC_Hans]

Re: Plate Tectonics

I have heard of the theory of plate techtonics. Many biblical creationists believe in plate techtonics but it is a catastrophic model, rather than the evolutionist fairy tale of millions and millions of years.

Plate tectonics can be proved. We can actually observe them moving.

Time is the key to evolutionary science. You believe in things that can not be observed as do I.

Wrong. We interpret observable evidence. Tons (literally) of it.

The difference is that biblical creationists have a historical record to interpret the evidence.

No. You have a collection of legends. Some of which are contradictory, as I'm sure some people have pointed out to you.

You say I use the flood or God did it to explain everything, well your ideas are rationalized by millions and millions of years to explain why things that will never be observed are true.

Many of these things can be verified by current observations.

The fossil record does not support slow changes because there are no intermediate fossils.

Wrong. There are plenty.

That is why one of your high priests Stephen Gould had to switch to punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of fossil evidence.

No. Observations show that that is what sometimes happens.

My point is that you all imply that evolution is a closed deal, it is a fact, but actually it is severely flawed.

Do point out the flaws.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Re: soft tissue

I am impressed with the evolutionist faith to believe soft tissue survived 70 million years. First time rbc's were found, you all were in denial, now you have had to accept it when it is found with soft tissue.

In Christ,
Nick

rbc's? What is that?

Hans

 

[Ossai]

Nick Harman

I have heard of the theory of plate techtonics. Many biblical creationists believe in plate techtonics but it is a catastrophic model, rather than the evolutionist fairy tale of millions and millions of years.

Three examples have already been given – one catastrophic the earthquake that caused the tsunami, one easily measurable on a human time scale – British Columbia and one where the Indian subcontinent abuts Asia.

The fossil record does not support slow changes because there are no intermediate fossils.

Ok, your ignorance is really showing on this one.
Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html and look for yourself. If you want to see them in person travel to Washington DC and visit the Smithsonian.

I am impressed with the evolutionist faith to believe soft tissue survived 70 million years. First time rbc's were found, you all were in denial, now you have had to accept it when it is found with soft tissue.

Not only do you not provide a link, but you apparently didn’t read the original paper your ignorance is founded upon.

Ossai

 

[Darat]

Re: soft tissue

I am impressed with the evolutionist faith to believe soft tissue survived 70 million years. First time rbc's were found, you all were in denial, now you have had to accept it when it is found with soft tissue.

In Christ,
Nick

Hi Nick people are being good enough to answer your questions about their claims do you think you could be good enough to answer my questions about your claims?

Thanks in advance

 

[Ashles]

And Nick, could you answer my question about why Humans and Dinosaurs are never found in the same geological layers?

I asked it in my first post to you.

And how can plate tectonics be purely a catastrophic model? It can only be catastrophic if the plates really do move in relation to each other. If you accept that they really do move then you have to accept the whole process. It makes absolutely no sense othewise (and contradicts what we observe perfectly clearly).

 

[H3LL]

Nick is avoiding answering.

I feel it is pointless us all just offering alternatives to any statement he can imagine or fantasise about.

The primary claim is that he is talking about a "science".

There is no evidence that it is either a science or follows the scientific method.

Calling it a science does not make it one.

The scientific method can be summarised such:


1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

1 and 2 he is safe with. Lets see how he does with 3 and 4.

The theory of evolution meets all the above requirements. Nick's fantasy does not, unless he can show otherwise.

Failure means it is just another belief system and fairy story and not valid as a science.

 

[Mojo]

Re: Plate Tectonics

The fossil record does not support slow changes because there are no intermediate fossils.

The fossil record frequently comes up with intermediate fossils. for example, creationists used to ask to be shown a fossil of a whale with legs. Fossils of primitive whales with vestigial legs have been found (although I suspect it will be a while before creationists stop asking for them - that's a big problem if you're in the habit of ignoring the evidence).

Of course, this now means that there are new gaps for the creationists to point to, on either side of the whales with legs...

 

[FFed]

Re: Fossils

The problem isn't the facts that scientists study, the problem is the interpretation. There are many scientists, who are biblical creationists, contrary to what many people believe (I can provide a good list if anyone is interested).

Welcome.

I am interested, please provide the list.

 

[Ashles]

Re: soft tissue

I am impressed with the evolutionist faith to believe soft tissue survived 70 million years. First time rbc's were found, you all were in denial, now you have had to accept it when it is found with soft tissue.

In Christ,
Nick

That's true. If we are presented with undeniable evidence we have to accept it. That's the scientific approach.

By the way I would like to see your list of list of biblical creationist scientists too.

Also, you still haven't answered any of the questions I originally asked.

(Except for the fossils in different layers question. And your answer is terrible in a variety of different ways.
But just one flaw with your answer is - why are there so many marine fossils lower than humans? Did the marine animals drown before humans? Why did NO humans die straight away. Why, in essence, are humans not ever found in the same layers as certain types of animal (eg dinosaurs)?)

 

[Nick Harman]

Nick is avoiding answering.

It looks like I may be the only person in here with a job and a family, I am lucky if I get an hour, and I am responding to many people w/many questions as opposed to 1 person. Give me a break.

In Christ,
Nick

 

[cthiax]

Nick,

If God would work through a flood (rather than just willing the death and removal of all life on Earth directly), why mightn't God work through another force or process?

Even if you accept that everything in the Bible is true, do you believe that everything true is in the Bible?

 

[Ashles]

It looks like I may be the only person in here with a job and a family.

Hmm that sounded a little bit like an insult.
Nobody has insulted you Nick, only asked you questions. I'm pretty sure most people here have jobs and families too.

 

[Nick Harman]

I apologize, I didn't mean to sound ugly. It was a sarcastic/humorous response answer my question, no my question, he is avoiding the question, what about my question. I certainly wonder where you all get the time, but I didn't intend it as an insult. Talk to you later.

In Christ,
Nick

 

[Nick Harman]

Here is the list from answersingenesis.com. you can read about them on the site. I am out of time for the day, as I mentioned yesterday I would have very little time today. I believe Saturday, I should be able to look at many of your questions, you have priority Ashles if not before then.

Serving a risen Savior,
Nick

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite specialist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer: Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer , Physiologist
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W, Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr Andrew Snelling , Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark , Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

 

[Darat]

Nick is avoiding answering.

It looks like I may be the only person in here with a job and a family, I am lucky if I get an hour, and I am responding to many people w/many questions as opposed to 1 person. Give me a break.

In Christ,
Nick

Don’t feel pressured by the questions. My suggestion, especially to a new Member, would be deal with each question as it comes up. The time taken to answer doesn’t really matter, just that an attempt is made to answer them.

In my opinion what can sometimes cause friction here is when a Member seems to be willing to ask question after question but doesn't answer questions asked of him or her by another poster.

Another suggestion is about making claims. Quite often new Members seem quite perplexed and almost shocked at what I’m sure can seem like a pathological desire from Members to seek evidence for claims. You can make what you think is a simple “everyday statement” that “everyone knows that” and suddenly find you’re being asked to support your “everyday statement”, you may not even realise that it did contain many assumptions. Don’t take this personally, it’s just this is a board which (probably) has a high percentage of people who like to ask questions and learn.

(If I didn’t add this paragraph you’d probably see some Members ask me to support the claims I made above – I will attempt to avoid that by making it very clear the above is purely my subjective view and I do not have evidence to support my opinions – so there! )

 

[Ashles]

Thanks for that. Research - we love this.

Firstly, of course, it has to be mentioned that having a PhD does not stop you believing in whatever you want to believe. And it certainly doesn't mean your beliefs are based on scientific principles.
For example I picked a name at random "Dr John Baumgardner" and saw that his arguments were extremely poor.

His speciality is plate tectonics and he appears to believe in a catastrophic view. (But I didnt actually notice anywhere that he said he believed the world was only 6,000 years old - I may have missed that part).

Also he makes a big deal of a catastrophic event that recent evidence indicates may have happened on Venus. It may be worth mentioning that, er, Venus doesn't have life on it. The comparison seems entirely irrelevant. His arguments are, to be honest, not those of a scientist.
He talks about the unlikihood of the DNA 'code' arising by chance.
Does he really not understand that it is not really a code as we think of it. It is not symbol that refer to other things - as Talk Origins puts it: T"he protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties".

Whatever his PhD is in it is certainly not biology, paleontology or, well, quite a lot of things apparently.

 

[Ashles]

Here's what Dr Henry Zuill thinks (accorrding to this page):

Biodiversity in nature is something that gives strong support for creation in six days simply because of the fact that so many species are interdependent on each other, that is to say if you take a certain number of organism types out of a diverse ecological area then the whole system will become unable to sustain itself. It appears that life on earth is what makes life possible on earth. The truth of the preceding statement rules out the possibility that life evolved from some chemical stew rather than being created already fully formed and integrated within the environment is a short period of days.

If scientists were priests this guy would be defrocked.

Many, many times have certain animals been removed from closed diverse environments (e.g. islands) or new animals been introduced. The system continues to sustain itself. This is a ridiculous and unjustifiable claim.
And if "so many species are interdependent on each other" that "if you take a certain number of organism types out of a diverse ecological area then the whole system will become unable to sustain itself" what effect, exactly do you think flooding the entire world would have?

It would be very tedious to go through all of these scientists and pick their errors apart one by one (although it appears it would not be too hard).
Instead why don't you tell us which you think are their most convincing arguments and we can look at those.
(Edited to add - actually this is unfair - you've been asked enough questions already. You can take your time with the previous questions before you get to these scientists - however I might keep picking the odd one out to mention)