Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: A great reply --- precambrian rabbits.

  1. #1
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Faith
    Christian Bible-based
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,373
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    39

    A great reply --- precambrian rabbits.

    This article contains a recent, outstanding response by Dr. Tas Walker to a letter-question from an "Agnostic evolutionist" regarding what a so-called Precambrian rabbit would mean to Creation and to Evolution. The response echoes (much more eloquently) much that I have posted here on TWeb over the years.

    Full article: https://creation.com/the-fossil-reco...mbrian-rabbits


    One section of Walker's response really caught my eye (I've highlighted one area):

    "... The absence of such a rabbit does not falsify biblical creation. If such a rabbit was found it would not falsify evolution. Remember that creationists and evolutionists have the same data but they have different ways of interpreting it. You can call it their worldview. Evolutionists do not encounter a problem and exclaim, “Oh, evolution must be wrong because of xxx.” No. They say, “How do we explain xxx?” In other words, the thought that the theory of evolution over millions of years may be falsified is never entertained. Their story simply changes to absorb the new facts."


    You may recall this common tactic of "scientific-minded" Evolutionists. I used the "Punctuated Equilibrium" hypothesis to illustrate it. Succinctly, for decades Evolutionists believed and lectured about a "gradual process of evolution". Then the data proved them totally wrong. Could it possibly be that Evolution Theory is wrong?

    HECK NO - that's blasphemy!!! So they simply changed the story to absorb the new facts -- facts that they could not make disappear. It's like the liar who, when caught red-handed in a lie, simply changes the story and/or concocts a new lie to hide the previous lies. That is dishonesty personified. Then they justify their actions by saying, "Well, that's how science works." Yeah, right, that happens to also be how LIARS work.

    Of course, I know very well that the Evo-Faithful here will dismiss all of this as "More Jorgian nonsense". I leave it to the honest people here to reflect on the facts presented above.

    Hasta la vista, baby.

    Jorge

  2. #2
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,941
    Amen (Given)
    165
    Amen (Received)
    1148
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
    This article contains a recent, outstanding response by Dr. Tas Walker to a letter-question from an "Agnostic evolutionist" regarding what a so-called Precambrian rabbit would mean to Creation and to Evolution. The response echoes (much more eloquently) much that I have posted here on TWeb over the years.

    Full article: https://creation.com/the-fossil-reco...mbrian-rabbits


    One section of Walker's response really caught my eye (I've highlighted one area):

    "... The absence of such a rabbit does not falsify biblical creation. If such a rabbit was found it would not falsify evolution. Remember that creationists and evolutionists have the same data but they have different ways of interpreting it. You can call it their worldview. Evolutionists do not encounter a problem and exclaim, “Oh, evolution must be wrong because of xxx.” No. They say, “How do we explain xxx?” In other words, the thought that the theory of evolution over millions of years may be falsified is never entertained. Their story simply changes to absorb the new facts."


    You may recall this common tactic of "scientific-minded" Evolutionists. I used the "Punctuated Equilibrium" hypothesis to illustrate it. Succinctly, for decades Evolutionists believed and lectured about a "gradual process of evolution". Then the data proved them totally wrong. Could it possibly be that Evolution Theory is wrong?

    HECK NO - that's blasphemy!!! So they simply changed the story to absorb the new facts -- facts that they could not make disappear. It's like the liar who, when caught red-handed in a lie, simply changes the story and/or concocts a new lie to hide the previous lies. That is dishonesty personified. Then they justify their actions by saying, "Well, that's how science works." Yeah, right, that happens to also be how LIARS work.

    Of course, I know very well that the Evo-Faithful here will dismiss all of this as "More Jorgian nonsense". I leave it to the honest people here to reflect on the facts presented above.

    Hasta la vista, baby.

    Jorge
    The absense of a pre-cambrian rabbit is not proof of evolution, nor does it say very much at all about YEC. And as the article points out, finding a single modern mammal in an ancient layer would not, on its own, falsify evolution. Any single type of animal having a fossils found in a particular layer is not proof of much of anything Jorge. But the fact NO modern mammals of any kind anywhere are found in layers containing dinosaurs, and that no dinorsaur fossils are found in ANY layers containing modern mammals IS a problem for YEC. And the reason is simple. Very, very large and distinct sets of fossilized life are separated in layers of rock such that the unique members of one set are never found in another (that does not imply there are not some animal types found in multiple sets)

    Due to the shape, size, mass, and sheer number of members of these sets, there are no natural criterial known - other than separation by the time - that would result in such a clear and complete separation of these animals fossils as we find them. And the hypothesis these fossils were created by a simulatenous world wide flood is contradicted by this clear separation as it is observed.

    the 'nonsense' here is that this clear bit of data can be explained equally well by both points of view.


    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-27-2018 at 09:44 AM.
    Jorge's trueorigins paper: "...it is known that other volcanic features match what is usually associated with impact craters including ... shatter cones and crystal deformations"

    Planetary Science Institute: "Shatter cones … are found in only two places on Earth, 1) in nuclear test sites and 2) meteorite impact structures. They are formed as a result of the high pressure, high velocity shock wave ...

    maximum pressures from 45 to 200 times greater than found in volcanic events (2->20 Gpa)

  3. #3
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,537
    Amen (Given)
    930
    Amen (Received)
    16114
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
    This article contains a recent, outstanding response by Dr. Tas Walker to a letter-question from an "Agnostic evolutionist" regarding what a so-called Precambrian rabbit would mean to Creation and to Evolution. The response echoes (much more eloquently) much that I have posted here on TWeb over the years.

    Full article: https://creation.com/the-fossil-reco...mbrian-rabbits


    One section of Walker's response really caught my eye (I've highlighted one area):

    "... The absence of such a rabbit does not falsify biblical creation. If such a rabbit was found it would not falsify evolution. Remember that creationists and evolutionists have the same data but they have different ways of interpreting it. You can call it their worldview. Evolutionists do not encounter a problem and exclaim, “Oh, evolution must be wrong because of xxx.” No. They say, “How do we explain xxx?” In other words, the thought that the theory of evolution over millions of years may be falsified is never entertained. Their story simply changes to absorb the new facts."


    You may recall this common tactic of "scientific-minded" Evolutionists. I used the "Punctuated Equilibrium" hypothesis to illustrate it. Succinctly, for decades Evolutionists believed and lectured about a "gradual process of evolution". Then the data proved them totally wrong. Could it possibly be that Evolution Theory is wrong?

    HECK NO - that's blasphemy!!! So they simply changed the story to absorb the new facts -- facts that they could not make disappear. It's like the liar who, when caught red-handed in a lie, simply changes the story and/or concocts a new lie to hide the previous lies. That is dishonesty personified. Then they justify their actions by saying, "Well, that's how science works." Yeah, right, that happens to also be how LIARS work.

    Of course, I know very well that the Evo-Faithful here will dismiss all of this as "More Jorgian nonsense". I leave it to the honest people here to reflect on the facts presented above.

    Hasta la vista, baby.

    Jorge
    Going all the way back to Darwin, it was noted that different organisms will evolve at different rates

    Source: On The Origin of the Species, First Edition


    "Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly.”



    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    In a later edition (1872) Darwin noted that "If, however, the modified offspring of a species get into some distinct country, or become quickly adapted to some quite new station, in which child and parent do not come into competition, both may continue to exist." This demonstrates that Darwin understood that species could develop rapidly ("become quickly adapted").

    So much for the YEC fable that "for decades Evolutionists believed and lectured about a "gradual process of evolution" when we can readily see from the offset the concept of different creatures evolving at different rates including quickly was there for all to see.

    Now for your whopper that gradualism has been "proved" to be "totally wrong."

    As pointed out to you on multiple occasions

    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    The problem (well, one problem) with your little rant is that we do have extensive evidence of gradual changes taking place in the fossil record -- specifically among what is known as microfossils like those of the single-celled organisms foraminifera, radiolaria, diatoms and coccolithorids.

    As noted by Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters":

    Source: Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters


    In addition to their great abundance and diversity, microfossils are ideal for evolutionary studies for several other reasons. Cores of the sediments covering the deep-sea bottom have been taken by rotary drilling and by plunging a long tube into the sea bottom (“piston coring”), and both retrieve an almost continuous record of marine sedimentation over that part of the ocean floor. Some cores span many millions of years with no breaks or gaps what- soever. These cores can be precisely dated by methods such as stable isotope analysis and magnetic stratigraphy, as well as with the biostratigraphy of the microfossil groups themselves. Thus we can trace the history of many microfossil lineages through many millions of years over a single spot in the world, something that is impossible with the much less complete record of shallow marine invertebrates or land vertebrates. Finally, the biogeography of microfossils. Finally, the biogeography of microfossils is relatively simple. Most are confined to a few water masses where the ocean waters are of a given temperature, and these species range over that entire water mass (Prothero and Lazarus 1980).

    © Copyright Original Source



    A couple decades ago two Florida State marine micropaleontologists, Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what is essentially an intact fossil record for a type of free-floating foraminifera that contains no so-called "missing links." The pair have recorded hundreds of speciation events in the history of the foraminifera they have examined which stretches over a nearly 70 million year period and say that transitional forms between various species aren't difficult at all to detect, making tracking ancestor species to their descendants easy to do.


    Here is an example covering roughly 6˝ million years
    From a post I made on the pre-crash Tweb concerning Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradualism:

    There are still papers being published on fossil data that shows that gradualistic evolutionary change is still recognized as completely legitimate: Gradual evolution in bacteria: evidence from Bacillus systematic and here is an earlier one: Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. And perhaps you might want to read this as well:

    Source: Large Punctuational Contribution of Speciation to Evolutionary Divergence at the Molecular Level


    A long-standing debate in evolutionary biology concerns whether species diverge gradually through time or by punctuational episodes at the time of speciation. We found that approximately 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level can be attributed to punctuational evolution, and the remainder accumulates from background gradual divergence.


    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    In fact, Eldredge and Gould went out of their way to repeatedly point out that “Punk Eek” in no way supplanted gradualism but worked alongside of it as Donald Prothero notes in a review of the subject:

    Source: PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM AT TWENTY: A PALEONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, pages 42-43


    As Gould and Eldredge (1977) pointed out in their five-year retrospective on the debate, it's easy to pick one specific example of either gradualism or punctuation, but the important issue is one of generality. Which pattern is dominant among the species in the fossil record, since both are known to occur? If you sample all the members of a given fauna, which pattern is most common? In the twenty years since the paper, more and more case studies have been generated, and by now a pattern seems to be emerging (Gould, 1992; Stanley, 1992).

    It is now clear that among microscopic protistans, gradualism does seem to prevail (Hayami and Ozawa, 1975; Scott, 1982; Arnold, 1983; Malmgren and Kennett, 1981; Malmgren et al., 1983; Wei and Kennett, 1988, on foraminiferans; Kellogg and Hays, 1975; Kellogg, 1983; Lazarus et al., 1985; Lazarus, 1986, on radiolarians, and Sorhannus et al., 1988; Fenner et al., 1989; Sorhannus,1990, on diatoms). As discussed by Gould and Eldredge (1977) and Lazarus (1983), this may be due to the fact that most of these organisms are either asexual clones, or show alternation of of sexual and asexual generations.


    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    So the observations actually reveal that both take place. It isn't an either-or situation but rather a complementary one. So as Prothero notes, Eldredge and Gould were aware of examples of both gradualism and PE, and like everyone else, wondered "which pattern is dominant." ... The only question that remains is which process is the dominant one.

    Source: Is evolution gradual or punctuated?: Large Punctuational Contribution of Speciation to Evolutionary Divergence at the Molecular Level


    A long-standing debate in evolutionary biology concerns whether species diverge gradually through time or by punctuational episodes at the time of speciation. We found that approximately 22% of substitutional changes at the DNA level can be attributed to punctuational evolution, and the remainder accumulates from background gradual divergence.


    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    Further, the fact that organisms can evolve at different rates is exactly what Darwin predicted:

    Source: On The Origin of the Species, First Edition


    ”Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly.”


    Source

    © Copyright Original Source

    Last edited by rogue06; 01-27-2018 at 10:08 AM.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  4. Amen Leonhard, Duragizer, gladiatrix amen'd this post.
  5. #4
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,024
    Amen (Given)
    67
    Amen (Received)
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
    [B][U]Evolutionists do not encounter a problem and exclaim, “Oh, evolution must be wrong because of xxx.” No. They say, “How do we explain xxx?” In other words, the thought that the theory of evolution over millions of years may be falsified is never entertained.
    This is exactly right, and exactly how it should be. When astronomers find a star doing something odd or unexpected (something that happens all the time), their first thought isn't "well, that's it, it's time to throw out relativity - hand me a Nobel, please". They know that relativity has been tested and measured countless times, and the vast majority of the universe behaves as if it's obeying relativity. An odd observation is just that - an odd observation - until there's some explanation of why the countless seemingly mundane observations have gotten things wrong.

    In the same way, the age of the earth has been established by many, many methods using data from throughout our solar system. Evolution has been observed and quantified, thousands of genome sequences are consistent with it, etc. A single observation wouldn't be enough to pitch all that in.

    I'm sure it comforts you to be able to ascribe all that to some sort of "worldview", given that it avoids having to deal with how science is practiced.

  6. #5
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,537
    Amen (Given)
    930
    Amen (Received)
    16114
    Although TL has already addressed this in part I'd like to tackle the heart of Jorge's OP.

    The basis for Jorge's gripe is rooted in his absolute inability to understand that every time a new unexpected discovery is made in science that we don't need to scrap and abandon everything we know about the subject and start all over again from scratch.


    It is only reasonable and logical that one should first determine if the new discovery can be worked into the existing paradigm, and if not, can the existing paradigm be altered so as to accommodate it. It is only if both of those fail that it may become necessary to re-examine everything previously understood and that a new explanation/model may be needed.

    For example, geologists recently found that a small portion of present day Australia was originally part of what is now North America but they split apart during the breakup of the early supercontinent Columbia (also known as Nuna) roughly some 1.7 billion years ago. Now according to Jorgian Logic™ this should mean that both continental drift and plate tectonics needs to be tossed aside and all of geology needs to be rethought from the ground up. That if it isn't then geologists are merely "concoct[ing] a new lie to hide the previous lies."

    Further, as a result of this largely unexpected discovery, long discredited notions such as a hollow and a flat earth should now be regarded as equally valid explanations about the nature of earth. Otherwise it is "dishonesty personified."

    Poppycock.

    The simple fact is that scientists are making unexpected discoveries in virtually every field of science on a very regular basis. Simply pick up any science related magazine and you're bound to come across a couple being covered (often hyped as "revolutionary" or "ground-breaking").

    The point being that Jorge is not complaining that this means they need to disclaim everything known about that field or they're being dishonest. He only reserves that standard for something he objects to.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  7. Amen Duragizer amen'd this post.
  8. #6
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,867
    Amen (Given)
    505
    Amen (Received)
    1308
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
    It's like the liar who, when caught red-handed in a lie, simply changes the story and/or concocts a new lie to hide the previous lies. That is dishonesty personified.
    Here's an example of that strategy in action:

    Lie #1: "As in the case of Roger DeHart, when he brought materials from SECULAR sources that mentioned problems in Evolution, he ended up being EXPELLED from his long-held job."
    Lie #1, repeated: "DeHart brought articles from Science, Nature, Scientific American and other secular sources. He was EXPELLED nonetheless."
    Lie #1, rerepeated explicitly: "DeHart was EXPELLED and he used secular supplementary materials - period!"

    Lie #2, after lie #1 was exposed: "I KNEWthat DeHart had used Of Pandas and People and I never denied that fact."

    Yeah, right, that happens to also be how LIARS work.
    would know. It's certainly how works.
    Mountain Man: A skin cell is a skin cell. It doesn't grow, it doesn't organize, it doesn't adapt, it doesn't self-sustain, it doesn't metabolize, it doesn't respond to stimuli.

  9. Amen Duragizer amen'd this post.
  10. #7
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,867
    Amen (Given)
    505
    Amen (Received)
    1308
    Evolutionists do not encounter a problem and exclaim, “Oh, evolution must be wrong because of xxx.” No. They say, “How do we explain xxx?” In other words, the thought that the theory of evolution over millions of years may be falsified is never entertained.
    That's a very hypocritical criticism from some-one who has signed a statement that "no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record".
    Mountain Man: A skin cell is a skin cell. It doesn't grow, it doesn't organize, it doesn't adapt, it doesn't self-sustain, it doesn't metabolize, it doesn't respond to stimuli.

  11. Amen Duragizer, gladiatrix, stfoskey15, Qoheleth amen'd this post.
  12. #8
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,941
    Amen (Given)
    165
    Amen (Received)
    1148
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    That's a very hypocritical criticism from some-one who has signed a statement that "no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record".
    'Ol Jorge sure has gotten to be a big 'fraidy cat' lately hasn't he?

    He just runs up, meows and hisses for a few seconds, the runs off as fast as he can to his hiding place till things die down a bit and he feels safe enough to do it again.


    Jim
    Jorge's trueorigins paper: "...it is known that other volcanic features match what is usually associated with impact craters including ... shatter cones and crystal deformations"

    Planetary Science Institute: "Shatter cones … are found in only two places on Earth, 1) in nuclear test sites and 2) meteorite impact structures. They are formed as a result of the high pressure, high velocity shock wave ...

    maximum pressures from 45 to 200 times greater than found in volcanic events (2->20 Gpa)

  13. Amen Duragizer amen'd this post.
  14. #9
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,537
    Amen (Given)
    930
    Amen (Received)
    16114
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    'Ol Jorge sure has gotten to be a big 'fraidy cat' lately hasn't he?

    He just runs up, meows and hisses for a few seconds, the runs off as fast as he can to his hiding place till things die down a bit and he feels safe enough to do it again.


    Jim
    It isn't like he actually engaged anyone in any meaningful way before

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  15. #10
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,941
    Amen (Given)
    165
    Amen (Received)
    1148
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    It isn't like he actually engaged anyone in any meaningful way before
    He sorta used to, a gradual spiral down to this sort of drive-by post mentality he has now.

    I guess it sorta goes like this. There is no scientific justification for a YEC point of view. At the same time, he is so convinced the only possible way for the Christian faith in general and the Bible in specific to be true is for his YEC conclusion to also be true that he really can't engage anyone openly, with any sort of objective analysis of the data or ideas presented. To do so would be to collapse his current world view and everything about it - good and bad.

    I don't really wish that for him necessarily. At the same time, I can't really believe that this sort of conflicted, hostile position is not in the end bad for him.

    Jim
    Jorge's trueorigins paper: "...it is known that other volcanic features match what is usually associated with impact craters including ... shatter cones and crystal deformations"

    Planetary Science Institute: "Shatter cones … are found in only two places on Earth, 1) in nuclear test sites and 2) meteorite impact structures. They are formed as a result of the high pressure, high velocity shock wave ...

    maximum pressures from 45 to 200 times greater than found in volcanic events (2->20 Gpa)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •