Free Republic

Scripter wrties:
"For some reason you think I'm interested in engaging you in a long discussion on the subject when I'm not even remotely interested. Nothing has changed and as I see it, the evidence for horse evolution is still non-existent so why waste all that time for a second round... Thanks, but no. That's all my time you'll get for now."

SO much for "teach the controversy"...

THis is the typical response of the IDers and their creationist travelers.

scripter writes "The study left me with more questions. If the evolution of the horse was the premier of evolution at one point, then the TOE was in much worse shape than I first realized."

LOL. Horse evolution is of many premier examples.

One can only wonder what you mean by "was".

Of course its rather odd that you don't state what the difficulty is.

Scripter writes: "I appreciate you sharing your opinion."

While we're sharing:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm
http://campus.northpark.edu/physics//bts3910/schimmrich/horses.html
http://www.cruzio.com/~cscp/index.htm

there is a record of the change in life through geologic time, both in rocks and in our genes.

scripter writes "I hope you don't mind if I disagree."


You can disagree all you want. You're still wrong on both counts.

Scripter writes "Are you saying you agree with the poster that said "evolutionism makes positive statements about unobserved, unrecorded history?"

Nope. Cause our genes and the fossil record the history of our evolution, in the same way that the Earth's rock record records the history of our planet and the light from distant galaxies records the history of our Universe..


All that is well and good. However, I recognized what the intent of the original poster's statement was. It was predicated on the false logic, that if nobody observed an event, then we can't draw firm conclusions about it.

Its laughable as well, that you fell for it, thinking it was a good point. WHich is why I asked you, "Should felons convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence be realeased from prison?"

If you agree with the faulty logic that firm conclusions can't be obtained regarding events in the past unless they occurred under direct human observation, then in order to be logically consistent, you must also agree that convictions solely based on forensic evidence are intrinsically suspect and should be voided.

I trust you now understand why the original statement is foolish. It is foolish because direct human observation isn't necessary and there is a record of the change in life through geologic time, both in rocks and in our genes.



I guess thats why you didn't answer my question.

I question why evolutionism makes positive statements about unobserved, unrecorded history and thereby thinks it has a right to piggyback on the name of science.

Scripter writes in response:
That's an excellent point to ponder.


So, scripter.. what do you think of criminals convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence?

Should they be let out of prison?

Yes or No?

After all nobody saw them commit the crime.

Bdk suggested that no scientists were funded before the "rejection" of flood geology (200 years ago).

Der, there was no such thing as a geology degree 200 years ago. Most of the geologists back then were folks, who, for lack of a better description, had too much time on their hands :-)

You can find sime nuggets in Peter Bowler's book "Evolution, History of an Idea"..

Merry Christmas... Happy researching..

Big.

It's legitimate to say, "I believe someone was here, I'll go look for footprints." What geologists 200 years ago were doing is to declare anything they found to be a footprint. Then, funded scientists came along and said, "Bad Science = Bad Hypothesis," which is equally wrong.

Der, this a bunch of nonsense. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Flood geology was rejected long before there were "funded" scientists.

At this point, while you say you don't want a flame, war, you keep asking for one. This whole post in the main, was pretty out there. I suggest you refrain from further comment on the issue until you have researched it.

It ought to be possible to first ask, "If the Flood occurred worldwide, what evidence ought we to find in nature?" and then go look for it. Even a miracle ought to leave a fingerprint. In the net, though, I am finding very few attempts to answer the question scientifically.

Der, For starters, the earliest geologists like Steno set out to look for evidence for Noah's flood. They didn't find it. For the first 200 years of geological science, the primary concern was finding evidence for the wolrd wide deluge. They found all sorts of evidence for floods big and small, but not for a Noachian world wide deluge. Geologists gave up by the 1820's.

THere has been no research by geologists looking for evidence of a world wide deluge, because the idea was falsified almost 200 years ago. We tend not to beat dead horses to death.

I suggest you read the FAQs at talkorigins.org, particularly the flood fact.



I understand the biblical approach and agree with it but, that doesn't help convince a sceptic.

Sceptics require geological evidence. There isn't any. Sorry. 400 years of scrutinizing the geologic column doesn't yield any evidence of a Noachian deluge. If you want to believe the Flood was a miracle, be my guest. But there's a second miracle associated with it. That it failed to leave a trace in the geologic record.


If anyone is doing this research, they aren't publishing online and they don't have a lot of grant money. I run into the same problem when researching OT texts. Sometimes hardcopy is the only way. I'm off to the library.

Der, nobody gets grant money (no scientists that is) to look for evidence of a Noachain deluge, and they shouldn't, any more than scientists shouldn't get money to study "phlogiston". People should not be paid to research ideas already demonstrated to be false.

Of course, you'd have to go to an hypothecary.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

B: Now thats funny.

"the floodgates of heaven."
If you wish to say Noah's flood was a miracle, just say so, and the argument is over. If you wish to argue that the evidence seen by scientists was planted by Satan, just say so and the argument is over. It is really futile to try to reconcile geology with miracles. People have been trying for 500 years and the results continue to diverge.

B: I agree with you.

From 255: Here are a few things to consider:
I'm not claiming to "know" anything. 255 was meant as a framework for answering the question, not a final pronouncement. So, don't simply respond with "You don't know what you're talking about." Such a statement, no matter how truthful, is non-germaine. I would much rather read: "Here's how things really went," or, "Here's why that doesn't work."

B: Fair enough. All of the available geological evidence suggest that the volume of the world's oceans has not changed dramatically over the last 500 million years. From what we can glean, oceans, or at least bodies of water were present very early in earth's history.

B: I don't have any scientific objections to a "flood", just to a world wide flood. That is simply a physical impossibility.

This guy: http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=2658 says, "Plus, scientists believe our atmosphere holds well over 40 trillion gallons of water at any given time. Every single day of the year, approximately 4 trillion gallons fall to the Earth in the form of rain."

Can anyone verify?

B: Even if Correct, we don't have a Noachian flood everyday, so what is your point?

A collection of verses pertaining to subterranian waters:
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/wute.html

B: Which is bunch of nonsense, and Doug Cox was debunked on talk.origins years ago. If you like you can pick the tone or two arguments from thsi site and we can go through it again.

Noah's Ark: I don't know enough details to consider myself any kind of expert but, looking at the whole story, it fits together. You're right, the rain was not the only source of water. Here are a few things to consider:
Traditional understanding is that much of the water came from huge underground caverns, which collapsed, causing their contents to spew out. IOW, the pre-deluvian ocean surface was much smaller. Such caverns still exist under Florida.

B: The caverns in Florida are a result of groundwater effects on limestone. Neither the volume of caverns or groundwater in Florida amount to anything remotely needed for a Noachian deluge. It is a myth. Sorry.


Another source of water is "the floodgates of heaven." A few years ago, it was discovered that the earth is constantly colliding with huge masses of ice crystals lying along its orbital path.

B:? Reference? The Earth peridoically is probably struck by comets. However, the amount of water need to produce the Noachian deluge would require many comets, which also contain copious amounts of poison gases. You don't know what you are talking about, or you didn't understand what you heard or read. "Big Ice crystals" in its path. Really.


The apparent source of these crystals is - earth. We leave them behind as vapour and pick them back up, later. I suspect this process was somehow involved, as well.

B: You're babbling, sorry. There is no scientific justification for anything you've written.


The account indicates the flood as the first rain ever. That's quite a claim. If true, there must have been some massive atmospheric changes, as well.

B: And miraculously Noah and his family were supplied pressure suits.

Finally, another odd phrase is "the water covered all the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits." Well, all the mountains are not the same heighth.

B: Sez who? It doesn't say that in the Bible. Again we have a literalist interpreting the Bible to suit his own needs. So much for "Biblical Literalism".



I believe a tidal wave is being described here - one large enough to travel around the whole earth. The Scandinavian and pacific island accounts indicate something of this nature, as well.

B: Beliefs don't constitue evidence or facts. And tsunamis don't leave deposits which resemble the totality of the geologic column. Your fantasies have nothing to do with modern science.


P. S. There is no way of knowing where Noah lived, prior to the flood. We only know he landed somewhere between Turkey and Egypt.

B: We don't know anything, as there was never a Noachian Deluge. Most likely there was a local catastrophic flood in Asia minor some thousands of years ago. THe story of Noah is simply the Epic of Gilgamesh turned into a morality play.

What you cannot get into your wooden head is you are trying to disprove I.D. by a computer program that was designed by someone intelligent...unless it was written by you, which would then make me believe that random meaningless noise could produce something worthwhile.

B: Hilarious. The algorithm is what nature uses. Its the same design, same basic process, different context. If you understood anything at all about mathematics, and a competent engineer would (that leaves you out), mathematics is independent of context.


Far as math goes, you give me something like Maxwell's equations which describe the electromagnetic force with sheer elegance...that describe the force? field? particles? great sucking sound? great pumpkin? of evolution, kay?

B: ROFL. *Real* engineers use the algorithm. THere is no closed form solution for such stochastic methods. Again, if you had actual training in advanced mathematics, you'd know that. The algorithm works, and produces designs not understandable by humans. Hence when we see complex designs not fathomable to us in nature, we shouldn't be to surprised, given that at the heart of the *natural design* process, lurks stochastic algorithms.

None of this population statistics and the other nonsense that explains NOTHING, that evolutionary biologists trot out as meaning anything.


B: LOL.

Some equations that can be worked with specific inputs and produce SPECIES!

B: Interesting point. If we can't write an equation for it, it can't happen?

B: Creationism gets more nutty every day.



Or what? Maybe it is all too complex for that? What would that be called?...a process that is too complex to be described mathematically, what could we call that? Something Special? Hmmmm ( cue tone of SNL Church Lady)

B: THe process can be described mathematically, population geneticists have been doing for decades, and now mathematicians and engineers. We can't predict the weather more than a few days in advance, but this creatobabbler demands we should calculate "species".

B: Its clear that there are defects in the ways some engineers are educated.

I am glad most of you idiots don't design bridges or anything useful.

B: Yeah. OK. Perhaps you should retire from Matell's.

I see you are impressed by degrees, pretensions and the Peacock like preening of so many of our psuedo intellectuals, an not truth. Same thing could be said of the Pharisees. If I'm ever sick I would first pick a small town doctor (not that Simmons is one) before some Ivory Tower jerk that could not diagnose a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester.

B: Be my guest Jehu. That would help clean up the gene pool.

I understood you perfectly. You have no clue of the doctrine of original sin. It is not some optional piece of equipment for the believer.

You dilute that doctrine and it will pervade everything you think about redemption and the real work of Christ, even if it is an unconscious rot of spirit it works away. Little foxes spoil the vine.

B: Ah yes, the battle cry of the god botherer. "Only I know the truth"..

B: ROFL. The world is getting tired of people like you.

My arguments are my own unless otherwise stated. Noah's Ark is another issue which we can take up if you wish.

B: Well your claim regarding Feduccia's view of Archeaopteryx was falsified. Your credibility has taken a huge nose dive.

B: After you apologize for misrepresnting Feduccia, present your claims regarding the Ark and the Noachian deluge, and we can then discuss those.

A lot of Jehu's other ideas seem to be derived from this book which a quick google turned up for me.
It is the creationists who maintain that scientists cannot think for themselves. Which makes it curious that nearly all of creationist arguments in forums like this appear to be copied without acknowledgement from religiously inspired websites. (and almost never from any peer-reviewed literature or real-world observations or experiments)

B: Creationists are the masters of turn speak.