[_ Old Earth _] The Flaws of the Geologic Column (Timeline)

[Pard]

I am curious about how non-Creationists view the flaws in the geologic column, or timeline. Do they sweep them under the rug and pretend that nothing is wrong with it? If not, and I hope they are not denying fact, how do they dispute the obvious flaws that are in the column and still allow for a belief in evolution and some form of "old world" theory?

If you know of no such flaws I will address a few, but I would rather see if people will address it themselves (see:admit) before I give examples.

 

[jasoncran]

as courtesy please post your claim and its sources so that proper debate can begin.

 

[Barbarian]

Sounds like an interesting subject. Show us.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I too am not quite sure about the flaws your speaking of. Although i would love to see some credible evidence! And just to clarify, Science is always a subject of debate and is always open for it. Scientists surely do not hide something that they know is wrong, It would diminish the meaning of science, which is merely just the attempt at an explanation of something that occurs naturally. If there is at all some credible proof that a theory is incorrect in some way, scientists gladly make alterations to improve the theory.

So I'd suggest you lay off the "hid their shame under the rug" bit.

 

[Bronzesnake]

I have removed the off topic response.
My apologies to all.

John

 

[Pard]

First, this is about the Geologic Column, evolution will of course be talked about, but this is not a debate on evolution at all, it is a discussion on the flaws in the Geologic Column. I think the best way to conduct this is going one topic at a time, if someone disagrees then I will post my other pieces, but because the flaws have nothing to do with one another (or at least the first few do not) I don't see any point in muddying the water by giving five examples all at once (It also makes this readable!).

The first flaw is the use of circular reasoning that relates to the fossil record (which is part of the geologic column).

As many surely know evolution appears to be backed by the "obvious" progression of the fossil record, which gives people "evidence" to believe that creatures evolve over time. However, the fossil record has been distorted to show this "evidence".

Biologists will turn to the fossil record to prove that evolution is indeed correct, because apparently the fossil record shows how a species evolved over time. At the same time, however, geologists will use the theory of evolution to prove that their column is in the correct order, when in fact they are literally re-arranging fossils they find (regardless of their date) to meet the biologists ideas on evolution. This is circular reasoning, and if we were computers we would go "Does not compute" and then blow up in a bunch of terrible fake sparks!

Evidence? I have an articles that you can read through. Note the names of the Journals and the authors, you will see that these are not "fake" scientists but they are educated people who have real knowledge and experience in this field. Unfortunately only one article is open to the Public. If you'd like the citations for the other articles (about 5) you can ask and I will post them, but they cost $$$ to look at...

Luckily, Mr. Kemp's article sums it up pretty well.

New Science, Vol. 108, Dec. 5 1985 p. 66 "A fresh look at the fossil record"

 

[Barbarian]

Well I disagree.
Have you been following the global warming e-mail debacle?
The scientists who are proponents of global warming were caught discussing the fact that their data was seriously flawed and completely incorrect, however they discussed surprising this devastating fact by outright lying and propagating data which they knew was incorrect and damaging, as a positive global warming fact.

Show us that email. I've gone through them, and I've found nothing at all that indicates their evidence was "completely incorrect." In fact, others have also investigated the stolen emails, and come to the same conclusion:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/13/m ... as-emissi/

You're way too gullible my friend.

Have you seen the movie Expelled?
This film is a debate over intelligent design and the idea that colleges and universities are expelling professors who don’t agree with the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Turns out that the guy who made it doctored the data. He refused to admit anything at all from Christians who accept evolution. "No intelligence allowed"; you betcha. Among other things, he falsely claimed that scientists had forced members of his family into the gas chambers in Nazi camps. That got him this drubbing from the Anti-Defamation League:

New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.


The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

Scientists came out and told their horror stories about how they were chastised and humiliated publically and even fired from their positions when they refused to tow the company line.

I’m sorry but this is reality.

It is, as one former Jewish camp inmate said, "a blood libel."

BTW, there is climate data from the US, as well as from England. It also shows marked warming. Would you like me to show it to you?

If evolution science is so empirically factual, then based on that strength why not engage in honest open scientific debate within our scholarly institutions

So you'd be good with say witchcraft being presented in medical schools as a viable alternative?

 

[Pard]

Well I disagree.
Have you been following the global warming e-mail debacle?
The scientists who are proponents of global warming were caught discussing the fact that their data was seriously flawed and completely incorrect, however they discussed surprising this devastating fact by outright lying and propagating data which they knew was incorrect and damaging, as a positive global warming fact.

Show us that email. I've gone through them, and I've found nothing at all that indicates their evidence was "completely incorrect." In fact, others have also investigated the stolen emails, and come to the same conclusion:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/13/m ... as-emissi/

You're way too gullible my friend.

[quote:192y5nqz]Have you seen the movie Expelled?
This film is a debate over intelligent design and the idea that colleges and universities are expelling professors who don’t agree with the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Turns out that the guy who made it doctored the data. He refused to admit anything at all from Christians who accept evolution. "No intelligence allowed"; you betcha. Among other things, he falsely claimed that scientists had forced members of his family into the gas chambers in Nazi camps. That got him this drubbing from the Anti-Defamation League:

New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.


The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

Scientists came out and told their horror stories about how they were chastised and humiliated publically and even fired from their positions when they refused to tow the company line.

I’m sorry but this is reality.

It is, as one former Jewish camp inmate said, "a blood libel."

BTW, there is climate data from the US, as well as from England. It also shows marked warming. Would you like me to show it to you?

If evolution science is so empirically factual, then based on that strength why not engage in honest open scientific debate within our scholarly institutions

So you'd be good with say witchcraft being presented in medical schools as a viable alternative?[/quote:192y5nqz]

Let's note the topic title and then consider our post first? I am aware he also posted in it, but if you two want to continure, I'd suggest the 1v1 thing. I am not about to let ya'll hijack my thread.

 

[Barbarian]

I'd be pleased to see your list of problems with the geological column. Tell us about it.

 

[jasoncran]

i am not the official mod for this forum, but i am sure free will agree, that if you bronzesnake wish to discuss the open mindness or closedmindness of science do so in another thread.

if not all irrevelant posts will be deleted.

 

[Barbarian]

I'd still like to see the difficulties with the geologic column.

 

[Bronzesnake]

OK, I'll add ten misconceptions with the geological column for starters.
http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column/

Misconception No. 1. The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.

Misconception No. 2. Geologists composed the geologic column by assembling the "periods" and "eras" which they had recognized.

Misconception No. 3. The strata systems of the geologic column are worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on the earth's surface.

Misconception No. 4. Strata systems always occur in the order required by the geologic column.

Misconception No. 5. Because each strata system has distinctive lithologic composition, a newly discovered stratum can be assigned easily to its correct position in the geologic column.

Misconception No. 6. Fossils, especially the species distinctive of specific systems, provide the most reliable method of assigning strata to their level in the geologic column.

Misconception No. 7. Sedimentary evidence proves that periods of millions of years duration were required to deposit individual strata systems.

Misconception No. 8. Radiometric dating can supply "absolute ages" in millions of years with certainty to systems of the geologic column.

Misconception No. 9. The environmental "pictures" assigned to certain portions of the geologic column allow us to accurately visualize what its "geologic ages" were like.

Misconception No. 10. The geologic column and the positions of fossils within the geologic column provide proof of amoeba-to-man evolution.

I guess we could start by debating any or all of these for starters.

John

 

[Barbarian]

Misconception No. 1. The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.

Yeah, that's wrong; the geologic column was noticed long before Darwin. But I'm thinking that there's a bigger "misconception" here. What do you think "uniformitarian" means?

Misconception No. 2. Geologists composed the geologic column by assembling the "periods" and "eras" which they had recognized.

This is also true. At first they had no idea what it all meant. They only knew the order for undisturbed sediments. The law of superposition was hundreds of years old by that time, so they knew the lower sediments were older. But they had no idea how old.

Misconception No. 3. The strata systems of the geologic column are worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on the earth's surface.

I'm always amazed that creationists think geologists ever thought this was true. Because it would require that all areas of the earth receive sediment at the same time, it's manifestly impossible for every layer to be present everywhere. There are however, a few places where every major strata is present. So far, we've gotten creationist misconceptions only. I don't see how that's a problem for science.

Misconception No. 4. Strata systems always occur in the order required by the geologic column.

See above. No one is surprised by this. From the start, they knew about things like folding and overthrusts, that cause the strata to be "out of place."

Misconception No. 5. Because each strata system has distinctive lithologic composition, a newly discovered stratum can be assigned easily to its correct position in the geologic column.

Never heard that one. Another "misconception creationists have about geology", I suppose.

Misconception No. 6. Fossils, especially the species distinctive of specific systems, provide the most reliable method of assigning strata to their level in the geologic column.

At one time, it was so. But radioisotope testing is far more reliable now. Index fossils are still quite useful, however.

Misconception No. 7. Sedimentary evidence proves that periods of millions of years duration were required to deposit individual strata systems.

That's another misconception creationists have. Sometimes, deposition stops entirely. Other times, it can rapidly occur. No scientist is surprised by that.

Misconception No. 8. Radiometric dating can supply "absolute ages" in millions of years with certainty to systems of the geologic column.

Another creationist misconception. Radiometric dating can supply reasonably accurate dates to billions of years, but there are numerous ways to misinterpret it. There are entire books written on things that must be done to assure accuracy.

Misconception No. 9. The environmental "pictures" assigned to certain portions of the geologic column allow us to accurately visualize what its "geologic ages" were like.

This is often true. Would you like to learn how we can know these things?

Misconception No. 10. The geologic column and the positions of fossils within the geologic column provide proof of amoeba-to-man evolution.

Another creationist misconception. No biologist with any sense thinks amoebas gave rise to humans. Nor does the obvious cases of evolution in the fossil record (such as those mentioned by Stephen Gould)
show such a thing.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Removed a double post.
I'm not sure why my posts seem to double up a lot lately, but I can't delete it because the delete option is not available on this post for some reason.

John

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Barb.

Misconception No. 1. The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.

Yeah, that's wrong; the geologic column was noticed long before Darwin. But I'm thinking that there's a bigger "misconception" here. What do you think "uniformitarian" means?

That’s the point Barb. It’s a “misconception†I agree that it was noticed long before Darwin.
I’m not sure where you’re going with the question “What do you think "uniformitarian" means?â€
The following quotes in italics are from http://www.icr.org/article/ten-misconceptions-about-geologic-column/
It may sound surprising, but the standard geologic column was devised before 1860 by catastrophists who were creationists. Adam Sedgewick, Roderick Murchison, William Coneybeare, and others affirmed that the earth was formed largely by catastrophic processes, and that the earth and life were created. These men stood for careful empirical science and were not compelled to believe evolutionary speculation or side with uniformitarian theory. Although most would be called "progressive creationists" in today's terminology, they would not be pleased to see all the evolutionary baggage that has been loaded onto their classification of strata.

Misconception No. 2. Geologists composed the geologic column by assembling the "periods" and "eras" which they had recognized.

This is also true. At first they had no idea what it all meant. They only knew the order for undisturbed sediments. The law of superposition was hundreds of years old by that time, so they knew the lower sediments were older. But they had no idea how old.

OK, so just to be clear...you agree that it is a misconception that geologists composed the geologic column by assembling the "periods" and "eras" which they had recognized correct?
Hey this is fantastic bro! We have actually found common ground!

Misconception No. 3. The strata systems of the geologic column are worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on the earth's surface.

I'm always amazed that creationists think geologists ever thought this was true. Because it would require that all areas of the earth receive sediment at the same time, it's manifestly impossible for every layer to be present everywhere. There are however, a few places where every major strata is present. So far, we've gotten creationist misconceptions only. I don't see how that's a problem for science.

I’ll accept that.

Misconception No. 4. Strata systems always occur in the order required by the geologic column.

See above. No one is surprised by this. From the start, they knew about things like folding and overthrusts, that cause the strata to be "out of place."

Great!

Misconception No. 5. Because each strata system has distinctive lithologic composition, a newly discovered stratum can be assigned easily to its correct position in the geologic column.

Never heard that one. Another "misconception creationists have about geology", I suppose.

Fair enough.

Misconception No. 6. Fossils, especially the species distinctive of specific systems, provide the most reliable method of assigning strata to their level in the geologic column.

At one time, it was so. But radioisotope testing is far more reliable now. Index fossils are still quite useful, however.

I must disagree that radioisotope testing is reliable.
I’ll start a new thread in regards to the dating methods later, so we’ll let this one slide for the time being.

Misconception No. 7. Sedimentary evidence proves that periods of millions of years duration were required to deposit individual strata systems.

That's another misconception creationists have. Sometimes, deposition stops entirely. Other times, it can rapidly occur. No scientist is surprised by that.

Well, I think the major point here is the disagreement of a belief in millions of years Barb.
Misconception No. 8. Radiometric dating can supply "absolute ages" in millions of years with certainty to systems of the geologic column.

Another creationist misconception. Radiometric dating can supply reasonably accurate dates to billions of years, but there are numerous ways to misinterpret it. There are entire books written on things that must be done to assure accuracy.

Hey, I have debated many evolutionists on this one Barb, so I disagree that this is a creationists misconception.

Misconception No. 9. The environmental "pictures" assigned to certain portions of the geologic column allow us to accurately visualize what its "geologic ages" were like.

This is often true. Would you like to learn how we can know these things?

Please don’t start this again brother. Honestly, we’re doing so well why start this again?
If you have any evidence which you feel strengthens your position then just post it. That’s why we’re here Barb. Tell you what, if it helps then just assume I want to see any evidence you may have ok?

Books, films and museum displays contain illustrations asking us to visualize what earlier "geologic ages" were like. These "pictures" show supposed primitive earth conditions, specific environments with sediments being slowly deposited, inferred "transitional organisms" evolving toward familiar forms, and whole communities of organisms "at home" with other organisms absent. Perhaps the most blatant environmental picture" has been assigned to lower Precambrian strata, formed when the earth supposedly had a reducing atmosphere and an "organic soup" in which life evolved. Yet, geologists have yet to find sedimentary evidence for the reducing atmosphere and the soup.6 This reminds us that accepting an environmental "picture" requires much imagination from a meager supply of facts.

Misconception No. 10. The geologic column and the positions of fossils within the geologic column provide proof of amoeba-to-man evolution.

Another creationist misconception. No biologist with any sense thinks amoebas gave rise to humans. Nor does the obvious cases of evolution in the fossil record (such as those mentioned by Stephen Gould)
show such a thing.

Come on Barb. That is so disingenuous buddy. I do agree though that it never happened, and never been abserved.

However, you know full well what "amoeba-to-man evolution" means - that Darwinian evolution believes that after life magically appeared, the first so called simple organisms began a process of unguided mutation and over extended periods of time, a process which we know either reshuffles, copies pre-existing genetic information, or causes an outright loss of genetic information, somehow caused single celled life forms to develop more and more complex structures and eventually became the huge variety of life we see today.

Why do you feel the need to pretend you don’t comprehend things from time to time?
What do you think you gain by doing this?
Are you simply taking a counter position in order to appear as a staunch defender of your camp, regardless of whether you actually do agree, or understand the parameters of the question?

It’s obvious that you are reasonably informed in spite of the fact that I don’t agree with you most of the time, but you are an intelligent man and obviously capable of engaging in this debate. When you do this kind of thing some people may not take you serious when you are actually presenting your own evidence.
In other words, when you deny common knowledge within the topic how are we to know whether any of your presented evidence, or positions are legitimate or not?

Anyway... I do enjoy discussing with you Barb, and believe it or not I have come to appreciate your style! If we were neighbours I am certain we would be good friends in spite of our counter positions.
You obviously do believe in Jesus, and whether you are correct or I am on this subject I believe we will both be going to Heaven when the time comes.
I don’t believe this is a Heaven or Hell subject...how about you?

Take care Barb.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Evointrinsic]

I'm not quite sure we can simply quote the ICR, let's just look at their track record.

Professor Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, has criticized ICR for professing to present the same science as that taught in secular universities while at the same time requiring students and faculty to sign a statement of faith to ICR's fundamentalist religious mission, most notably in affirming conformity in all its work to Biblical doctrine.

Source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research#Scientific_criticisms

The quote continues

Pigliucci notes that any research conducted within the ICR's policy framework is prescribed at the outset by Biblical literalism, and thus antithetical to the methods and framework used by scientists. As examples, Pigliucci cites ICR scientist Harold Slusher resorting to non-Euclidean and non-Einsteinian explanations of light travel to reconcile the vast distances light travels in space with the brief timescale given in young earth creationism, and the association adopted by the ICR between the second principle of thermodynamics and the Bible's account of the fall of Adam. Pigliucci further claimed that "some of the historical claims found in the ICR museum are also stunning and show how easily ideology gets the better of accuracy."

Duane Gish himself, the former vice president of the ICR, stated that "neither creation nor evolution are scientific theories. Evolution is no more scientific than creation" If this is correct, than Creationist logic cannot be used in a scientific debate.

Furthermore, Duane Gish has made a profession of repeated accounts of plagiarism

"Creationist Duane Gish makes claims in his book "Evolution: the fossils say No!", using a quote copied from O'Connell's book without attribution. (Gish 1972-1979)"

Insults and slander (in Gish's book Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics)

"According to Gish, evolutionists are "smug" (pp. 12, 16), "gripped ... firmly [by] dogma" (p. 13), "arrogant" (pp. 16, 295, 306), "vicious" (pp. 19, 71, 162, 194, 205, 334, 343, etc.), "slanderous" (pp. 88, 96, 193), "virulent" (pp. 98, 141, 275, 334), and "bitter" (pp. 343, 357). Creationists, on the other hand, are "the voices of scientific reason" (p. 13), taking part in a "renaissance" (p. 15), and are promoting "an open, free, and thorough scientific challenge to evolutionary theory" (p. 18). It is impossible to read more than a few pages of Gish's book without encountering emotion-laden adjectives. And if Gish can describe an evolutionist as an "atheist," a "humanist," or a "Marxist," he rarely hesitates to do so (pp. 21, 22, 29, 72, 145, 253, etc.). It is ironic, then, that Gish advises evolutionists to avoid "vicious, ad hominem attacks" (pp. 71, 107). "
Source = http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html

and countless scientific mistakes

It is also apparent from Gish's book that he has not read one of the most significant popular works arguing for evolution in recent years, Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (1985). If he had, he would not have made the mistake of claiming (p. 54) that "The white coat color of the polar bear cannot be adaptive, however, since he has no predator"--an argument rightly ridiculed by Dawkins on pp. 38-39 of his book.

Source = http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/gishreview.html

In July 1983, the Public Broadcasting System televised an hour-long program on creationism. One of the scientists interviewed, biochemist Russell Doolittle, discussed the similarities between human proteins and chimpanzee proteins. In many cases, corresponding human and chimpanzee proteins are identical, and, in others, they differ by only a few amino acids. This strongly suggests a common ancestry for humans and apes. Gish was asked to comment. He replied:

"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the other hand, if you look at certain other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullforg than he is to a chimapanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."

I had never heard of such proteins, so I asked a few biochemists. They hadn't either. I wrote to Gish for supporting documentation. He ignored my first letter. In reply to my second, he referred me to Berkeley geochronologist Garniss Curtis. I wrote to Curtis, who replied immediately.

Some years ago, Curtis attended a conference in Austria where he heard that someone had found bullfrog blood proteins very similar to human blood proteins. Curtis offered an explanatory hypothesis: the "frog" which yielded the proteins was, he suggested, an enchanted prince. He then predicted that the research would never be confirmed. He was apparently correct, for nothing has been heard of the proteins since. But Duane Gish once heard Curtis tell his little story.

...I asked [Gish] about the proteins in the presence of several creationists. Gish tried mightily to evade and to obfuscate, but I was firm. Doolittle provided sequence data for human and chimpanzee proteins; Gish could do the same - if his alleged chicken and bullfrog proteins really exist. Gish insisted that they exist and promised to send me the sequences. Skeptically, I asked him pointblank: "Will that be before hell freezes over?" He assured me that it would. After two-and- one-half years, I still have neither sequence data nor a report of frost in Hades.

Source = http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre1.htm

Dr. Gish has always been fond of quoting Isaac Asimov as his authority on the Second Law. In our journal, Creation/Evolution, Issue VI, Dr. Asimov responded. He described Gish's treatment of the Second Law as being, and I quote, "on a kindergarten level." The problem with Gish's treatment of it is that he ignores that when you have an open system, you can have things going to a higher degree of order.

Source = http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin2.html

I could go on with that, but let's move on to the ICR in general.

This whole page is dedicated to a few ICR issues http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html

Another entire page dedicated to ICR issues http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html

ICR also has a history of Quote Mining and blatant lying.

So I don't think we can consider the ICR a very reputable source of information when it comes to scientific study.

I would also like to state the same thing above goes for Answers in Genesis as well. I can also get more information on that if you'd like.

Would you be able to source information that other scientists have found evidence for these same claims?

 

[Barbarian]

Misconception No. 1. The geologic column was constructed by geologists who, because of the weight of the evidence that they had found, were convinced of the truth of uniformitarian theory and organic evolution.

Barbarian observes:
Yeah, that's wrong; the geologic column was noticed long before Darwin. But I'm thinking that there's a bigger "misconception" here. What do you think "uniformitarian" means?

That’s the point Barb. It’s a “misconception†I agree that it was noticed long before Darwin.
I’m not sure where you’re going with the question “What do you think "uniformitarian" means?â€

I'd just like to hear what you think it means.

Misconception No. 2. Geologists composed the geologic column by assembling the "periods" and "eras" which they had recognized.

Barbarian observes:
This is also true. At first they had no idea what it all meant. They only knew the order for undisturbed sediments. The law of superposition was hundreds of years old by that time, so they knew the lower sediments were older. But they had no idea how old.

OK, so just to be clear...you agree that it is a misconception that geologists composed the geologic column by assembling the "periods" and "eras" which they had recognized correct?
Hey this is fantastic bro! We have actually found common ground!

It's the other way around. They defined the periods and eras by the different levels in the geologic column. They could only do relative dating, not absolute dating.

Misconception No. 3. The strata systems of the geologic column are worldwide in their occurrence with each strata system being present below any point on the earth's surface.

Barbarian chuckles:
I'm always amazed that creationists think geologists ever thought this was true. Because it would require that all areas of the earth receive sediment at the same time, it's manifestly impossible for every layer to be present everywhere. There are however, a few places where every major strata is present. So far, we've gotten creationist misconceptions only. I don't see how that's a problem for science.

I’ll accept that.

Misconception No. 4. Strata systems always occur in the order required by the geologic column.

Barbarian observes:
See above. No one is surprised by this. From the start, they knew about things like folding and overthrusts, that cause the strata to be "out of place."

Great!

Misconception No. 5. Because each strata system has distinctive lithologic composition, a newly discovered stratum can be assigned easily to its correct position in the geologic column.

Barbarian observes:
Never heard that one. Another "misconception creationists have about geology", I suppose.

Fair enough.

Misconception No. 6. Fossils, especially the species distinctive of specific systems, provide the most reliable method of assigning strata to their level in the geologic column.


Barbarian observes:
At one time, it was so. But radioisotope testing is far more reliable now. Index fossils are still quite useful, however.

I must disagree that radioisotope testing is reliable.

Doesn't matter. Evidence matters. And it works very well:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

It would be extremely difficult to explain why such diverse methods all give such close results, if it weren't accurate. Moreover, some forms are useful in spans short enough that we can test them on events that are datable by other means:

Berkeley -- A powerful geologic dating technique called argon-argon dating has pegged the 79 A.D. eruption of Vesuvius so precisely that it establishes one of the most solid and reliable anchors for any dating method.

With such validation, the radioactive argon dating technique now can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as young as 2,000 years, say researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the Berkeley Geochronology Center.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases ... mpeii.html

Misconception No. 7. Sedimentary evidence proves that periods of millions of years duration were required to deposit individual strata systems.

Barbarian observes:
That's another misconception creationists have. Sometimes, deposition stops entirely. Other times, it can rapidly occur. No scientist is surprised by that.

Well, I think the major point here is the disagreement of a belief in millions of years Barb.

The evidence is what it is. Until the 20th century, even fundamentalists realized millions of years were necessary for creation as it is.

Misconception No. 8. Radiometric dating can supply "absolute ages" in millions of years with certainty to systems of the geologic column.

Barbarian observes:
Another creationist misconception. Radiometric dating can supply reasonably accurate dates to billions of years, but there are numerous ways to misinterpret it. There are entire books written on things that must be done to assure accuracy.

Hey, I have debated many evolutionists on this one Barb, so I disagree that this is a creationists misconception.

I've never seen a scientist deny what I just told you. Notice my link. Joe Meert is one of the best people in the field, and he points out what I just told you.

Misconception No. 9. The environmental "pictures" assigned to certain portions of the geologic column allow us to accurately visualize what its "geologic ages" were like.

Barbarian observes:
This is often true. Would you like to learn how we can know these things?

Please don’t start this again brother. Honestly, we’re doing so well why start this again?
If you have any evidence which you feel strengthens your position then just post it. That’s why we’re here Barb. Tell you what, if it helps then just assume I want to see any evidence you may have ok?

Well, you indicated you didn't want to talk about some of it. Here's some ways we can know. Sandstone often preserves the details of the way it was formed, with cross-bedding showing dune formation, often with burrows, roots, and other traces of living things. Lots of information.

Perhaps the most blatant environmental picture" has been assigned to lower Precambrian strata, formed when the earth supposedly had a reducing atmosphere and an "organic soup" in which life evolved.

The atmosphere is shown by the reduced iron and banded iron deposits. Only possible in a reducing atmosphere. And now, chemical fossils are beginning to give us an idea of the organic chemistry.

Yet, geologists have yet to find sedimentary evidence for the reducing atmosphere and the soup.

Sorry, that's wrong. Learn about it here:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature ... 99s_oxygen

This reminds us that accepting an environmental "picture" requires much imagination from a meager supply of facts.

Turns out it's more interesting and informative than you thought.

Misconception No. 10. The geologic column and the positions of fossils within the geologic column provide proof of amoeba-to-man evolution.

Barbarian observes:
Another creationist misconception. No biologist with any sense thinks amoebas gave rise to humans. Nor does the obvious cases of evolution in the fossil record (such as those mentioned by Stephen Gould)
show such a thing.

Come on Barb. That is so disingenuous buddy.

It's hard to accept, maybe. But it's true. "amoeba to man" is just a strawman.

However, you know full well what "amoeba-to-man evolution" means

It means that creationists don't want to deal with the theory, and so make up their own, which they then insist that scientists must believe.

that Darwinian evolution believes that after life magically appeared,

Yeah, like that. A complete misrepresentation. Don't you realize how it looks to other people?

the first so called simple organisms began a process of unguided mutation and over extended periods of time, a process which we know either reshuffles, copies pre-existing genetic information, or causes an outright loss of genetic information,

Or as you just learned, adds information,

somehow caused single celled life forms to develop more and more complex structures and eventually became the huge variety of life we see today.

The evidence for common descent is vast and from many independent sources. Here's your chance to show us you do understand what you're talking about. Tell us from what sources scientists cite evidence supporting common descent.

Why do you feel the need to pretend you don’t comprehend things from time to time?

My point is that I do understand this issue. And you don't.

Are you simply taking a counter position in order to appear as a staunch defender of your camp, regardless of whether you actually do agree, or understand the parameters of the question?

I'm just reminding you that every time you misrepresent what science has to say about this, it hurts your position.

You're right in believing that evolution is not a salvation issue, however.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Evointrinsic.

So let me get this straight.
You feel that it’s legitimate for you to use scientific evolutionary sources, but we can’t use scientific creation resources?

I’ve had this discussion before my friend. For some bizarre reason most people who ascribe to evolution can’t comprehend that the term “science†is not synonymous with the term “evolution†it is extremely perplexing.

Instead of attempting to slander Christian scientists and their resources, why not let’s simply debate the science and the conclusions based on the science?

I would never dream of suggesting atheists stop using their sources because my faith isn’t based on evolution, so please don’t ask me to stop using my sources.
You can’t comprehend that being a fundamentalist doesn’t only apply to Christianity.
I am a fundamentalist Christian in that I literally believe in creation.
You are fundamentalists also, in that you literally believe in evolution.

Look, perhaps I should take some time on this issue so it doesn’t come up again.
There is this seriously misguided idea that the only “real†scientists are evolutionists.
Well if that’s true then please answer me this...
Is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function?

Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution?

Read what two scientists have to say in relation to this discussion...

Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton has stated, “The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.â€

And creationists are not the only ones who understand this. Dr. Philip Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Penn State University, wrote:
I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss .... From my conversations with leading researchers it had became [sic] clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

The main difference between creation scientists and evolutionary scientists is that they both start out with different presuppositions and assumptions.
They are both equally educated from the same institutes. They both study the exact same evidence and they both use the same scientific methods.
Surely in this day and age there is no room for this kind of blatant ignorance and prejudice brother.

I’ve stated this before, and unfortunately it seems like I’ll have to repeat it again.
We cannot have a real, honest debate or discussion when one side seems incapable of recognising the other’s credentials.

Now, we can disagree on conclusions, but please, don’t ask us to stop using our creation science resources, and we won’t ask you to stop using your atheistic scientific resources.

It seems a very weak and tenuous position when instead of debating the science we resort to personal attacks and ironic accusations.
Your source made some blanant personal attacks, and even gave an example of a creation scientists who had been incorrect on a matter.
Are you inferring that evolution scientists are always correct? Always honest and forthcoming?
I could spend days posting examples of evolution mistakes and dishonesty my brother, so let's not go there.

Do I have to post another long list of creation scientists credentials do I?
Also, you must be aware of the famous and highly respected Christian scientists throughout the years right?
Isaac Netwon? Carl Linnaeus? Nicolaus Steno? Andrew Ure? John Murray? William Kirby?
George Young? James Clerk Maxwell? to name a few.

There’s also the seemingly inconsistent actions of evolution scientists to consider.
They tell us the universe, all the planets and suns, including our own planet Earth and all life are the result of some fluke, random, chance accident and yet they struggle and sweat to try and make sense of what they themselves claim to be chaos?

They work and day and night at trying to produce life in the lab, and yet if they ever do wouldn’t that just prove life needs intelligent creators to come into existence?
They keep telling us that life is the result of fluke random chance, and yet their greatest minds cannot even produce a simple cell from nothing. Does this mean their most intelligent people are not as equipped to "create" as a non intelligent, random event?

That’s like saying instead of having a scientists conceive and assemble a computer, for example, we’d get far superior results if we just wait and let fluke, random chance take its course, because compared to the universe and everything within it which supposedly came about minus any intelligent creator or scientist, our so called intelligent efforts are garbage.
If all life can happen by accident, then surely the finest scientists should be able to produce far greater examples using their brains and superior scientific knowledge

Can we go on with the real discussion now brother?

John

 

[jasoncran]

guys i'm scared, for you see if evolution is wrong my house may fall down and my car wont start. so please ensure me that its right.

 

[Barbarian]

So let me get this straight.
You feel that it’s legitimate for you to use scientific evolutionary sources, but we can’t use scientific creation resources?

For the same reason you can't use orange leprechauns.

I’ve had this discussion before my friend. For some bizarre reason most people who ascribe to evolution can’t comprehend that the term “science†is not synonymous with the term “evolution†it is extremely perplexing.

Probably because there is no scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.

Instead of attempting to slander Christian scientists

Christian scientists like Dobzhansky, Morgan, Ayala, etc? Turns out Christian scientists have no problem with evolution.

not let’s simply debate the science and the conclusions based on the science?

You were just complaining that it put your side at a disadvantage.

I would never dream of suggesting atheists stop using their sources because my faith isn’t based on evolution, so please don’t ask me to stop using my sources.

You could no more have atheistic or theistic science than you could have atheistic or theistic plumbing. Silly idea, that.

You can’t comprehend that being a fundamentalist doesn’t only apply to Christianity.
I am a fundamentalist Christian in that I literally believe in creation.
You are fundamentalists also, in that you literally believe in evolution.

See, that's the misconception that keeps tripping you up. Scientists don't "believe in" science. They accept theories or reject them, based on evidence.

Look, perhaps I should take some time on this issue so it doesn’t come up again.
There is this seriously misguided idea that the only “real†scientists are evolutionists.

There are some scientists who actually do good work, who don't accept evolution. None of them AFAIK, are biologists, however.

Is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function?

I don't know any scientist who thinks that molecules became men. God does say that some kinds of molecules brought forth living things, however. Not scientific, but still, the truth.

Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution?

Antibiotic protocols, for example. And comparative anatomy has had much to do with neurosurgery, based on the evolutionary connections between man and other animals. Of course, agronomists and animal breeders use evolutionary theory to make predictions about the fitness of new varieties. And now, bacteriologists are using evolutionary theory to predict the likely path of new antibiotic resistances.

Read what two scientists have to say in relation to this discussion...

Until we have your assurance that you've read the entire work from which this quote-mined sample was taken, why should we bother? Especially after you problems with the Gould quote-mining.

Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton has stated, “The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.â€

I wonder if Doctor Dave just doesn't read the literature, or if this one was quote-mined prior to the 1950s. At any rate, If you'd like me to verify those and other examples of evolutionary theory producing useful knowledge, I'd be pleased to do so.

The main difference between creation scientists and evolutionary scientists is that they both start out with different presuppositions and assumptions.

Yes. Scientists begin by assuming that we can learn about nature by testing and gathering evidence. "Creation scientists" begin by assuming that evidence is the enemy.

I’ve stated this before, and unfortunately it seems like I’ll have to repeat it again.
We cannot have a real, honest debate or discussion when one side seems incapable of recognising the other’s credentials.

Credentials don't do it. Facts do it. In science, nothing is settled by "he said it."

Now, we can disagree on conclusions, but please, don’t ask us to stop using our creation science resources, and we won’t ask you to stop using your atheistic scientific resources.

Science is what it is. When belief is more important than the evidence, you're not going to do well.

Do I have to post another long list of creation scientists credentials do I?
Also, you must be aware of the famous and highly respected Christian scientists throughout the years right?
Isaac Netwon?

Newton was a firm believer in the scientific method. Remember, Darwin was a Christian when he wrote his book, too.

Carl Linnaeus?

I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so.
--Carolus Linnaeus, February 14, 1747

Surprise.

Nicolaus Steno?

The founder of the law of superposition, upon which the geological column is based.

Surprise.

Andrew Ure?

The guy who claimed he could bring people back to life by stimulation of the phrenic nerve? That one?

Ure was a scriptural geologist and in 1829 published A New System of Geology, for which "he received 500 guineas and was elected an original member of the Geological Society." Some criticized it severely. Ure did not write his book on the basis of personal geological investigations. Rather, he drew "freely from every authentic source of geological knowledge within his reach." Specifically, Conybeare and Phillips' Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales, though he also "diligently availed himself" of the valuable information in Cuvier's Ossemens Fossiles. "The New System of Geology was not a success, even among readers who might have been expected to be sympathetic, and it was soon forgotten." because "the New System of Geology ... came just too late, at a time when the positions it so noisily defended were being quietly abandoned, leaving the author in slightly ridiculous isolation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Ure

John Murray?

The man who acknowledged that Darwin was right that at least some coral atolls were the result of millions of years of subsidence?

William Kirby?

The author of one of the "Bilgewater Treatises?"

The works are of unequal merit; several of them took a high rank in apologetic literature, but they attracted considerable criticism. One notable critic of the Bridgewater Treatises was Edgar Allan Poe, who wrote Criticism. Robert Knox, the anatomist, referred to them as the "Bilgewater Treatises"; he was an idealist, and disliked the detailed and utilitarian explanations of the Treatises. The joke became commonplace, and can be found in Charles Darwin's correspondence.

Odd assemblage. Maxwell, Newton, Steno, and Linnaeus seem out of place with the others.

There’s also the seemingly inconsistent actions of evolution scientists to consider.
They tell us the universe, all the planets and suns, including our own planet Earth and all life are the result of some fluke, random, chance accident

That's another story creationists tell about scientists. As usual, false.

and yet they struggle and sweat to try and make sense of what they themselves claim to be chaos?

The basis of uniformitarianism is that it isn't chaotic. Again, you'd do much better, if you actually knew what scientists say about these things.