Question 1: The Fossil Record

[Simon]

According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms "is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

[YEC]

Lotan wrote:
snipped

Lotan...you say that the term creationist negates any sense of scientific objectivity. This is the most hypocrytical statement I have ever heard from a person of science. Scientists have openly admitted that the idea of a creator can not be considered because it cant be tested. From square one science is not objective in the creation/evolution debate.

Is that a true statement or is it that we just don't know how to test for a creator?

[Jose]

I see your point, YEC. With the skidmarks and the car, we are trying to reconstruct the events that occurred to end up at the current situation, using the physical data that are available. The difference between that situation and Creation is that the data are quite different. In the case of the car and the skidmarks, the data are physically present. In the case of creation, the data exist only in one flavor of Holy Book.

What makes Nyril's cartoon exactly correct is that the Creationist approach begins with the veracity of Genesis, not with any kind of physical data at all. So, while you may be right that different scientific methods can be used to analyze the physical data (hypothesis testing, vs explanation development), in no case does science begin with the conclusion as God-given Fact.

Lotan...you say that the term creationist negates any sense of scientific objectivity. This is the most hypocrytical statement I have ever heard from a person of science. Scientists have openly admitted that the idea of a creator can not be considered because it cant be tested. From square one science is not objective in the creation/evolution debate.

Is that a true statement or is it that we just don't know how to test for a creator?

Actually, both are true. By definition, the "natural sciences" investigate the natural world, not the supernatural (ie God). Thus, scientists admit that science and God are different realms, and thus God "cannot be considered" in this realm. This means, of course, that there are no methods by which we can test for, or against, a creator.

This makes it somewhat of a tricky business to reconcile the theological issues with the scientific. They are different aspects of reality, and really should not have to reconcile with each other. They are too different.

[YEC]

Jose,
Often in an accident investigation the police officer only has an eyewitness's account of the event.

In this case the police officer must then find facts to see if the eyewitnesse's account is true.

With Genesis we have an eyewitness...and to many the scientific facts confirm Genesis.

[Jose]

Jose,
Often in an accident investigation the police officer only has an eyewitness's account of the event.

In this case the police officer must then find facts to see if the eyewitnesse's account is true.

I was chatting the other day with the head of our State Police Lab, who runs the forensic analyses, who said that prosecutors are no longer able to press a case based only on eyewitness accounts. Eyewitnesses are, apparently, notoriously unreliable. Instead, prosecutors require forensic data. That is, your second sentence here is the important one: it is necessary to find the facts, and interpret them.

With Genesis we have an eyewitness...and to many the scientific facts confirm Genesis.

Unfortunately, we actually do not have an eyewitness. We have only the written story, which is based on the oral traditions of the tribe. If anyone actually saw what happened, they didn't write it down until many, many generations afterward. What is in that particular book simply does not qualify as eyewitness account.

I'd be interested in hearing what scientific facts you think confirm Genesis. Remember, scientific confirmation requires not only that there are facts that are consistent with the explanation, but also that there are no known facts that contradict it. If there are contradictory facts, then the explanation is disproven. If there are only confirmatory facts, then we are allowed to say that the theory still stands (but is not proven). However, the discussion of such issues is for a different thread. We have one thread already dedicated to part of this topic--The Flood As Science.

In this thread, the topic is the fossil record, and whether any fossils have been found since Darwin's time, and whether there are or are not transitional fossils. We've answered both questions in the affirmative.

[rjw]

Gidday YEC,

I only just noticed your argument of 14 Jan 04 and so my apologies for a late post.

I've seen traffic accidents investigated. Using the comic as a guide one might say...look at the skidmarks on the highway (facts). What conclusion can we draw from it? The answer might be a car at the end of the skidmarks.

OR

We have a car that was involved in an accident (the conclusion). What facts can we find to support it? The answer might be skidmarks leading towards the car.

Your illustration does not make the point.

In your first example only the skid mark can be seen – and you call it fact. An unseen wrecked car somewhere ahead, you label a conclusion. In this you are correct.

In the second example, both the car and the skid marks can be seen yet you call the car a conclusion. It is not. The car is a fact in the same sense that the skid marks of your first example are a fact.

One could conclude from seeing a wrecked car that there may be (as yet) unseen skid marks somewhere behind. That would be a conclusion then.

So we do not have two methods which are scientifically correct. Rather we have:-

1) in your first example, an observation of skid marks leading to a conclusion of a wrecked car,
2) in your second example either,
a) two observations – wrecked car and skid marks, or
b) one observation (wrecked car) and a conclusion (skid marks behind).

Example 1 is equivalent to 2b. Unfortunately, 2a is nothing like 1, nor is it like 2b. Examples 1 and 2b are equivalent however, in that they are both use facts which lead to conclusions.

That is they are observations which allow us to draw inferences.


Regards, Roland

[USIncognito]

Nyrils comic above missed the point.

I've seen traffic accidents investigated. Using the comic as a guide one might say...look at the skidmarks on the highway (facts). What conclusion can we draw from it? The answer might be a car at the end of the skidmarks.

OR

We have a car that was involved in an accident (the conclusion). What facts can we find to support it? The answer might be skidmarks leading towards the car.

Both methods are scientifically acceptable Nyril.

You must not be a fan of CSI. Lets try for a more accurate analogy.

The Creationist reads a news article about the accident then concludes that the driver was drunk, on his cellphone and swerved to avoid a deer thus producing the skid marks and the crash. The Creationist then looks for skid marks, and upon finding them declares his version of the story to be correct.

The Scientific way is to come upon the scene of the crash, look at the drivers BAC level, check for any distractions (like a burger or cellphone), see if there is a deer corpse or tracks, determine speed from the vehicle weight, skid mark length and post-accident location, etc. And then offers a hypothesis as to why the accident occurs. Either the evidence will bear that hypothesis out, or it will be falsified and he'll need to develop a new one.

The comic stands as salient and appropriate, and the claim that both methods are equally valid fail.

[Jose]

Either the evidence will bear that hypothesis out, or it will be falsified and he'll need to develop a new one.

With Genesis we have an eyewitness...and to many the scientific facts confirm Genesis.

So, we've discussed the car-wreck analogy pretty thoroughly. It tells us that, no matter what initial ideas we may have about what happened, we still need to study the clues left behind by the event, in order to determine whether they support our initial ideas. This is necessary, even if we have eyewitnesses.

You are absolutely correct, YEC, that many people believe the scientific facts support Genesis. So did the most learned European scholars prior to the middle of the 19th century. But, as said learned scholars sought the evidence to support their inferences, they were forced to develop new explanations--which turned out not to be Genesis.

The interesting point here, is that there is still strong belief that the facts confirm Genesis. Could you tell us, YEC, which facts you refer to? Please don't just give us a link to some long list--it will be much more understandable if you can tell us a few of the facts that you consider to be most important.

[YEC]

Either the evidence will bear that hypothesis out, or it will be falsified and he'll need to develop a new one.

With Genesis we have an eyewitness...and to many the scientific facts confirm Genesis.

So, we've discussed the car-wreck analogy pretty thoroughly. It tells us that, no matter what initial ideas we may have about what happened, we still need to study the clues left behind by the event, in order to determine whether they support our initial ideas. This is necessary, even if we have eyewitnesses.

You are absolutely correct, YEC, that many people believe the scientific facts support Genesis. So did the most learned European scholars prior to the middle of the 19th century. But, as said learned scholars sought the evidence to support their inferences, they were forced to develop new explanations--which turned out not to be Genesis.

The interesting point here, is that there is still strong belief that the facts confirm Genesis. Could you tell us, YEC, which facts you refer to? Please don't just give us a link to some long list--it will be much more understandable if you can tell us a few of the facts that you consider to be most important.

No problem Jose....

As you well know, the evidence of the actual fiat of creation was destroyed in the flood. The evidence the YEC present is flood evidence.
Although, Polonium Halo's can be considered as evidence of a rapid fromation of the Basalts.
Not to mention that C-14 hasn't met equilibrium as of yet...which it should have if the earth is as old as some claim. Many say the continents should have eroded by now, that is if the continents are as old as some claim.
Judging from the erosion rate of Niagra falls as it retreats from lake Ontario, the falls are much much younger than the old earthers claim.
The observation of the earth population and population growth also support a recent creation.
We also must not forget the decay of the magnetic field of the earth which STRONGLY indicate a young earth and recent creation along with the recession rate of the moon that would have put it too close to earth a few billion years ago.The low amount of helium in the earth atmosphere and the low level of salt in the ocean also say young earth. Not to mention that the sediments in the ocean would be higher is another example of a young earth. Polystrata trees are also a good example and proof that strata forms quickly and not over millions upon millions of years. The soft sediment deformation of rock strata is a very good indicator of a rapid folding of the pre-hardened rocks and not millions upon millions of years as the continents drifted slowly. The rapid formation of the Grand Canyon when the Hopi and Grand lakes broke through their damns show how it could have been formed in a very short period of time and not millions of years. The Mt St. Helen Volcano and after results PROVED the possibility of quick canyon formation.

Here's some more reasons I once found:

1. The amount of dust on the moon's surface
2. Lack of meteorites in the geologic column
3. The Poynting-Robertson Effect on Cosmic Dust Sphericals
4. The Abundance of Short-period comets v.s. its average life-span
5. Io being geologically active
6. The Moon, i.e. Lunar Material with high levels of radioactivity
7. Types of Radiation that shouldn't be in existence on the Moon
8. Turbulance & instability of Saturn's Rings
9. Existence of 3 Giant Dust Rings that circle the solar system
10. Rock-Flow of Lunar Material v.s. craters of the Moon
11. Lack of emitted Neutrinos from the sun
12. The chemical composition of stars being roughly the same
13. Star clusters gravitationally bound yet containing stars with vastly different thurmonuclear-burn
sequences
14. Paradox between the expected nuclear-fusion temperature history of the sun and the temperature
history of the Earth
15. Controversy over our Shrinking Sun
16. The White Dwarf Star Sirius B Mystery
17. The Missing Mass Problem
18. Velocity of Light Deccaying with Time idea
19. Lack of Helium in Earth's Atmosphere
20. Problems with Radioactive Clocks
21. Age of Diatoms v.s. fossil skeleton of a Baleen Whale on End
22. Lack of erosional lines separating depositional formations
23. Polystrate Fossils in Sedimentary Rocks
24. Tilt of the Earth Axis based on Astronomical Evidence via. Eudoxus, Stonehenge & Solar Temple of
Amen-Ra
25. Geocentric Pleochroic Polonium Halos in Precambrian Granite & Coalified Wood
26. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
27. Oil & Natural Gas - their existence
28. Carbon-14 Disintegration v.s. production
29. Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Moment
30. Dinosaur Tracks & Man Tracks at Paluxy - Generally no longer used by most creationists
31. Large Stars - Mass problems
32. Delta Filling - Rate of growth of delta
33. Ocean Chemical Concentrations - Much less than what they should be
34. Erosion of the Continents - Problems with supposed time involved
35. History - Record of man's existence
36. Dendrochonology - Age of trees much less than what they could be
37. Sea Ooze - Lack of sea ooze on ocean floors
38. Rotation of the Earth - Rotation much to fast by evolutionary standards
39. Ocean Sediment - Rate of sediment added to the oceans precludes an old ocean
40. Volcanic Water & Rocks - Time problem based on present rate of rock accretion
41. Mutation load - Lack of it indicates biological world couln't have vast antiquity
42. Population Statistics
43. Earth Heat - Earth young based on considerations of existing temperature gradient in the earth and its
rate of cooling
44. The existence of Lunar Inert Gases
45. Stalagmites & Stalactites
46. The existence & depth of topsoil
47. Certain Geological features a) unconsolidated rock b) various fossils & minerals & their current rate of
formation c) the lack of uniformitarian horizontal layers of sedimentary rocks blending & d) meandering
serpentine course of many rivers and canyons
48. Niagra Falls and the rate of its edge wearing away
49. The existence of Hydrogen still in the universe
50. The existence of Atmospheric Oxygen
51. Grand Canyon Dating
52. Dating of the Cardenas Basalts
53. Basalts on the Rim of the Grand Canyon
54. Age of Meteorites/Earth & Allende
55. Recent Dating of Civilization
56. Plate Tectonics and the age of the Earth
57. Salt in the Ocean
58. Rocks on the Earth's Surface
59. Various Surface Features of the Earth (such as ripple marks, raindrop impressions, animal tracks)
60. Bioturbation - Deficiency of evidence of living communities within a layer of rock
61. Lack of soil layers anywhere in the geologic column
62. Undisturbed Bedding Planes
63. Soft-Sediment Deformation
64. Clastic Dikes
65. Limited extent of unconformities
66. Lack of evidence of in situ petrified tree stumps
67. Escape of methane from Titan
68. The Recession of the Moon
69. The presence of star clusters
70. The sudden appearance of Advanced Life forms
71. The permanence of prototypes
72. Absence of Transitional Forms
73. The Nature of Fossilization & the Fossils themselves
74. Preservation of Soft Parts
75. Sirius B White Dwarf & observation

[Jose]

Ah, a repeat-post from Beliefnet.org. Handy.

As you well know, the evidence of the actual fiat of creation was destroyed in the flood. The evidence the YEC present is flood evidence.
Although, Polonium Halo's can be considered as evidence of a rapid fromation of the Basalts.

Hmmm...3 questions here. First, why would the flood destroy the evidence? This doesn't make sense to me. What kind of evidence would that be? Second, wouldn't the polonium haloes be the kind of evidence that did not get destroyed in the flood? You seem to be contradicting yourself. Third, I think it would be worthwhile commenting on the issues raised in the Polonium Haloes thread, since it is pretty clear that the data have nothing to do with rapid formation of basalt. Since you are citing polonium haloes as evidence, I assume you have examined the claims and can explain them.

Not to mention that C-14 hasn't met equilibrium as of yet...which it should have if the earth is as old as some claim.

Why should it reach equilibrium? How do we know it hasn't? You'd better spell this one out for me.

Many say the continents should have eroded by now, that is if the continents are as old as some claim.

They do say that, but are they right? What's their logic? There's pretty good evidence that the ancestral Rockies did erode to nothingness, and the new Rockies are about where the old ones had been. Why should everything have eroded away? And, how can this give us any kind of age measurement?

Judging from the erosion rate of Niagra falls as it retreats from lake Ontario, the falls are much much younger than the old earthers claim.

I'm not familiar with the claims of the old earthers for the age of Niagra falls. I recall seeing historical extrapolations for where the falls should have been at various ages in the past, so I'm guessing the scientific interpretations take erosion rates into account. What do the old-earthers claim?

The observation of the earth population and population growth also support a recent creation.

Come, come. You know better than that! This silly old calculation has so many assumptions that is is completely meaningless. We can also use the same kind of calculation to argue that humans are twice as old as the fossil data says they are!

We also must not forget the decay of the magnetic field of the earth which STRONGLY indicate a young earth and recent creation along with the recession rate of the moon that would have put it too close to earth a few billion years ago.

I think you'd better explain these to me, too. Simply making a statement isn't at all helpful. It simply shows that you can present the statement. You haven't explained it to me.

The low amount of helium in the earth atmosphere and the low level of salt in the ocean also say young earth.

Ah yes, the salt story. I guess we have to say that the dead sea was created before the rest of the earth, then? And the equatorial ocean was created before the polar oceans? Or are we allowed to factor in circulation, recycling, and all of those other natural events that make these guesses meaningless?

Not to mention that the sediments in the ocean would be higher is another example of a young earth.

Hmmm...the lack of sediment in the oceans argues against a worldwide flood, but at the same time, you use it to argue for a young earth. Same observation, in one view contradictory to the Genesis story, in the other presumably supportive of it. Neither, of course, takes into account the spreading centers or subduction zones. Oh well, I guess we can't have our evidence for creation fit all of the data.

Polystrata trees are also a good example and proof that strata forms quickly and not over millions upon millions of years. The soft sediment deformation of rock strata is a very good indicator of a rapid folding of the pre-hardened rocks and not millions upon millions of years as the continents drifted slowly. The rapid formation of the Grand Canyon when the Hopi and Grand lakes broke through their damns show how it could have been formed in a very short period of time and not millions of years. The Mt St. Helen Volcano and after results PROVED the possibility of quick canyon formation.

We've talked a lot about all of these in these threads. It seems to me that all of them have been shown not to be helpful. Of course it's possible to get lots of sediment in a short time! It's also possible to have sediment form slowly. This should be self-evident. But what does the fact that there are local floods or mudslides have to do with creation?

I don't think you've made your point. Certainly, you've given us a long list of things, but there's no explanation. How do any of these things prove anything? It would be like me saying "Sonic Hedgehog and Son of Sevenless," and expecting you to say "ahhh...very wise. Evolution is proven."

[USIncognito]

As you well know, the evidence of the actual fiat of creation was destroyed in the flood. The evidence the YEC present is flood evidence.

I'm calling cognative dissonance. You mean the absense of evidence for a young earth, ostensibly erased by the flood - is evidence for a young earth?

Although, Polonium Halo's can be considered as evidence of a rapid fromation of the Basalts.

The problem being that Polonium Halos don't evidence a young earth.

Not to mention that C-14 hasn't met equilibrium as of yet...which it should have if the earth is as old as some claim. Many say the continents should have eroded by now, that is if the continents are as old as some claim.

Except that there is a C-14 isn't the benchmark for old earth evidences. Other isochron dating methods are. Also, I don't really get what you mean by C-14 "equillibrium" since there is a constant creation of that isotope due to cosmic rays.

As far as the continents go, the Himilayas are actually growing by a few centimeters per year as India continues to smash into Asia. The only way one can deny the surface of the Earth is in flux is to ignore Plate Tectonics. I don't know what that has to do with C-14 though.

Judging from the erosion rate of Niagra falls as it retreats from lake Ontario, the falls are much much younger than the old earthers claim.

I'd avoid repeating Kent Hovind's claims in the future. The reason the erosion of Niagara Falls dates to about 10-15,000 years is that before then, the area was under a mile or so of glaciation during the late-Pliestocene Ice Age. Since the Niagara River didn't exist before 10-15,000 years ago, there's no way it could have eroded the falls.

The observation of the earth population and population growth also support a recent creation.

The problem with this is the population calculations provided by YECs don't match up with known populations at certain historical benchmarks. If one takes the geneologies as a guide, there were like 1,000 people in Egypt when some of the later pyramids were built, a few more thousand during the Exodus and total world population in the hundreds of thousands at the time of Jesus, when it's known that Rome's population alone was over a million.

We also must not forget the decay of the magnetic field of the earth which STRONGLY indicate a young earth and recent creation...

Actually, it suggests just the opposite.

I'd like to deal with each of your PRATTs individually, but I'm very weary of them so I'll just address a few.

1. The amount of dust on the moon's surface

Answers in Genesis even knows this argument should be abandoned.

2. Lack of meteorites in the geologic column

One word - Chixulub. Two other words - Iridium Layer.

4. The Abundance of Short-period comets v.s. its average life-span

Oort Cloud/Kueyper Belt.

5. Io being geologically active

The Earth is geologically active. How exactly does Io being geologically active point to a young earth?

11. Lack of emitted Neutrinos from the sun

Again, even AiG admits this argument shouldn't be used.

12. The chemical composition of stars being roughly the same

You mean like being made of hydrogen and helium? I don't really get the relevancy of this point.

I could respond to all the others, but I don't have the wherewithall to do so tonight...