Belief in evolution leads to what in the real world

[rjs1]

I was asked to for examples to support my statement that there were many instances of strata not showing fossils in the “correct” order for evolutionary theory. Some areas to examine: - The Matterhorn shows “older” evolutionary fossils above “younger” fossils. The stratas at Glarus in the Alps, show, according to their fossils, “old” Permian rock on top of “younger” Jurassic rock, which in turn is on top of much younger Eocene rock. The same problem of “wrong order” is found at Vasquez, North of Los Angeles and attempts are made to explain this by talking about rock overthrust. However rock overthrust involves enormous forces that result in pulverised layers between the overthrust and the rock underneath. Unfortunately this layer of breccia (pulverised rock) is simply not there. The same “problem” for evolutionists exists in the Empire Mountains in Arizona, where once again supposedly older strata are above “younger” strata yet there is no evidence of overthrust. Another example is Crazy Cat Mountain in El Paso where evolutionists attempted to explain an “older” layer being over a “younger” layer by positting massive mountain sliding. The problem is, there is no evidence at all in the rock layers to indicate a massive slide. There are many other examples. If you want to you can investigate them yourself. Just be careful to check up on the so called explanations for “older” layers of rock (according to the fossils in them) being on “younger” layers. The scientists can’t just say that there was an overthrust or a slide, they have to produce evidence for it. The reason. of course, why they are forced to claim overthrust or slide is that the existance of fossils in radically the wrong oder blows evolution out of the water.

 

[Orogeny]

rjs1:

I was asked to for examples to support my statement that there were many instances of strata not showing fossils in the “correct” order for evolutionary theory. Some areas to examine: - The Matterhorn shows “older” evolutionary fossils above “younger” fossils. The stratas at Glarus in the Alps, show, according to their fossils, “old” Permian rock on top of “younger” Jurassic rock, which in turn is on top of much younger Eocene rock. The same problem of “wrong order” is found at Vasquez, North of Los Angeles and attempts are made to explain this by talking about rock overthrust. However rock overthrust involves enormous forces that result in pulverised layers between the overthrust and the rock underneath. Unfortunately this layer of breccia (pulverised rock) is simply not there. The same “problem” for evolutionists exists in the Empire Mountains in Arizona, where once again supposedly older strata are above “younger” strata yet there is no evidence of overthrust. Another example is Crazy Cat Mountain in El Paso where evolutionists attempted to explain an “older” layer being over a “younger” layer by positting massive mountain sliding. The problem is, there is no evidence at all in the rock layers to indicate a massive slide. There are many other examples. If you want to you can investigate them yourself. Just be careful to check up on the so called explanations for “older” layers of rock (according to the fossils in them) being on “younger” layers. The scientists can’t just say that there was an overthrust or a slide, they have to produce evidence for it. The reason. of course, why they are forced to claim overthrust or slide is that the existance of fossils in radically the wrong oder blows evolution out of the water.

I don’t know where you are getting your information, but try looking at some geological references rather than some young earth sources.

Peace

Tim

 

[rjs1]

Orogeny,
Please be fair. You asked me for evidence or examples to support my statement about fossils being in the wrong order to support evolutionary theory. I gave you a list of examples and you dismissed the lot with one sentence because they might have come from an anti evolutionary source, (I presume that is what you mean by “young earth” source). The examples were from the booklet Fossils, Strata and Evolution by J.Read and C.Burdick. You did not examine each case and show that it was false or dishonest. You simply ignored them.
I happen to believe that a number of the books that give the case against evolution are written by intelligent, thoughtful people who are scientificaly trained and whose opinions should be listened to. Two books I would give as examples are: Creation Rediscovered by G.J.Keane and Evolution A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. Keane has honours in Science- Botany, Chemistry and Geology, at Oxford University. He has a BA and MA in forestry, a PhD in plant physiology and a DSc in genetics. Denton is a molecular biologist, who at the time of writing the book worked at the Prince of Wales Hospital, one of Sydney’s major hospitals.
You would expect me to examine the arguments in favour of the theory of evolution. How could I miss them! I have had them rammed down my throat all through school, both Junior and Senior, with never once being given any points on the other side.
For you to dismiss evidence because it may have come from an anti evolutionary source shows me the level of debate on the theory from the evolutionists’ side. It suggests that I am wasting my time.

 

[Orogeny]

rjs1:

Orogeny,
Please be fair.

Did you research these claims prior to posting them? Do you know that there is plenty of evidence of thrust faulting at those sites (except of course Crazy Cat Mountain which is a great illustration of gravity flow)? Or did you just accept those claims?

You asked me for evidence or examples to support my statement about fossils being in the wrong order to support evolutionary theory. I gave you a list of examples and you dismissed the lot with one sentence because they might have come from an anti evolutionary source, (I presume that is what you mean by “young earth” source). The examples were from the booklet Fossils, Strata and Evolution by J.Read and C.Burdick. You did not examine each case and show that it was false or dishonest. You simply ignored them.

My ignoring them is an assumption on your part.

I also did not address human footprints in the Pauluxy Formation along side of dinosaur trackways or human skulls found in coal seams. Just like your claims, all of those claims are without fact.

I happen to believe that a number of the books that give the case against evolution are written by intelligent, thoughtful people who are scientificaly trained and whose opinions should be listened to. Two books I would give as examples are: Creation Rediscovered by G.J.Keane and Evolution A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. Keane has honours in Science- Botany, Chemistry and Geology, at Oxford University. He has a BA and MA in forestry, a PhD in plant physiology and a DSc in genetics. Denton is a molecular biologist, who at the time of writing the book worked at the Prince of Wales Hospital, one of Sydney’s major hospitals.

We are dealing with geology here, not evolution. Did you know that the idea of an old earth predates evolution? Did you know that those early geologists were Christians?

You would expect me to examine the arguments in favour of the theory of evolution.

Yes.

How could I miss them! I have had them rammed down my throat all through school, both Junior and Senior, with never once being given any points on the other side.

I don’t know, but you seem to have. When you mention Junior and Senior, are you refering to highschool? If so, I would suggest that you did not have much more than a brief introduction to geology at most, and I guarantee you didn’t get into structural geology other than some very basic definitions.

For you to dismiss evidence because it may have come from an anti evolutionary source shows me the level of debate on the theory from the evolutionists’ side. It suggests that I am wasting my time.

You mentioned that there is always a fault breccia associated with thrust faults. Can you defend that remark or is it something you will rely on your forrester/botanist/geneticist for? Have you ever seen a thrust fault? Do you know the tectonic setting of those examples?

Here is a link to a site that describes the Castaic block, which includes the Vasquez sediments you refer to. Read this and get let me know if you agree that there is no sign of faulting in the area.

seis.natsci.csulb.edu/deptweb/SkinnyCalSites/TrnsverseRng/CastaicBlock/CBGeolOver.html

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

rjs1:

For you to dismiss evidence because it may have come from an anti evolutionary source shows me the level of debate on the theory from the evolutionists’ side. It suggests that I am wasting my time.

One thing I want to make clear. The study of geology is not synonymous with the study of evolution. Every single example you have refered to has been studied extensively by geologists that are looking to piece together the geologic history of that area. I will guarantee you that they didn’t even think about implications to the theory of evolution while completing their research. Your implication that geologist would make up stories simply to support the theory of evolution indicates to me that you have a very poor understanding of geology.

I will be more than happy to continue this discussion with you, but if all you are going to do is quote young earth books, then you are right, you are wasting your time. If, however, you want to have an intelligent discussion of geology, I will be happy to help you.

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

RJS << Two books I would give as examples are: Creation Rediscovered by G.J.Keane >>

Joke. I’ve heard some of his audio talks online. Bad science, poor scholarship. From his article Is Evolution an Open Question for Catholics?

“The true definition of evolution discovered by science is this: Evolution is molecules-to-man, natural transformation in which new, ‘higher’, genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one’s ancestors. If this is a fair and reasonable definition, then we can be certain that evolution as commonly understood has never occurred because it cannot occur. Why? Because God has designed life forms so that only variety within kind is possible. The missing mechanism of evolution is doomed to remain missing because it never existed. That’s why there are no intermediate stages found in the fossil record-they have never existed! This absence of intermediates was candidly admitted by the famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould.”

In this one paragraph, he mis-defines evolution (descent with modification by natural selection), is ignorant of the fossil record (there are plenty of intermediates), and thinks that Gould supports him (he does not).

See Part 3 of my response to Sungenis, not finished but almost

Gerry Keane again:

“Modern scholarship has established that the author(s) of Genesis 1-11 fully intended to give an accurate account of the descent of man from Adam and Eve. It follows that the genealogies in the Bible are reliable (despite Cainan being in contention) and so it follows that Adam and Eve must have been specially created less than 10,000 years ago. According to a literal, obvious reading of Genesis, before the creation of Eve, Adam was called by God to name all the beasts of the earth therefore he must have seen and named the dinosaurs less than 10,000 years ago; the dinosaurs could not have perished mysteriously 65 million years ago as most long ages theorists hold.”

I am not a Fundamentalist by Gerry Keane

Adam/Eve naming all the dinosaurs? I don’t think so. I’m not sure that T-Rex would have cooperated. Actually modern scholarship is quite divided on Genesis 1-11. Many scholars would not treat it as literal history, but as poetry or myth. The Catechism itself refers to some of the language of early Genesis as “symbolical” and “figurative.”

See Part 1 of my response to Sungenis, not finished but almost

RJS << and Evolution A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton. Keane has honours in Science- Botany, Chemistry and Geology, at Oxford University. He has a BA and MA in forestry, a PhD in plant physiology and a DSc in genetics. Denton is a molecular biologist, who at the time of writing the book worked at the Prince of Wales Hospital, one of Sydney’s major hospitals. >>

Keane has therefore clearly turned away from his academic training, or didn’t learn much about evolution or the age of the earth. From what I understand, Denton has since changed his mind. He now accepts evolution and does not believe it is a “theory in crisis.” For information on that, see this link from Babinski’s site

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

RJS << You would expect me to examine the arguments in favour of the theory of evolution. How could I miss them! I have had them rammed down my throat all through school, both Junior and Senior, with never once being given any points on the other side. For you to dismiss evidence because it may have come from an anti evolutionary source shows me the level of debate on the theory from the evolutionists’ side. It suggests that I am wasting my time. >>

You aren’t wasting your time, you are just a slow student. Most high schoolers got their biology freshman year. Unless you had more biology later.

The ramming didn’t work, we’ll just have to ram some more. But you might be wasting your time if you think Keane’s material can stack up to TalkOrigins. Some of these folks below have even gone beyond freshman high school biology.

Biology and Evolutionary Theory FAQs

Phil P

 

[rjs1]

PhilVaz:

RJS << You would expect me to examine the arguments in favour of the theory of evolution. How could I miss them! I have had them rammed down my throat all through school, both Junior and Senior, with never once being given any points on the other side. For you to dismiss evidence because it may have come from an anti evolutionary source shows me the level of debate on the theory from the evolutionists’ side. It suggests that I am wasting my time. >>

You aren’t wasting your time, you are just a slow student. Most high schoolers got their biology freshman year. Unless you had more biology later.

The ramming didn’t work, we’ll just have to ram some more. But you might be wasting your time if you think Keane’s material can stack up to TalkOrigins. Some of these folks below have even gone beyond freshman high school biology.

Biology and Evolutionary Theory FAQs

Phil P

PhilVaz,
Again, I am concerned about the type of debate this topic is producing. In the above quote you have insulted my intelligence by assuming I did my biology training at the beginning of High School and was therefore “just a slow student”. I, in fact, did most of my biology in senior years. I do not live in the United States. Secondly you made the comment, with regards to the pro evolutionists, that “Some of these folks below have even gone beyond freshman high school biology.” Thus you insulted the training and qualifications of Keane, who went way beyond freshman high school biology.
By all means present your points. By all means disagree with Keane, but why this necessity to descend into ridiculing him or me?

 

[PhilVaz]

RJS << Thus you insulted the training and qualifications of Keane, who went way beyond freshman high school biology. By all means present your points. By all means disagree with Keane, but why this necessity to descend into ridiculing him or me? >>

I’ll insult when his scholarship is atrocious. Show me where Gould supports him. Keane states:

“This absence of intermediates was candidly admitted by the famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould.” – Keane, Is Evolution an Open Question for Catholics

“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled ‘Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax’ states: ‘The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.’” – Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory” (May 1981 reprinted in Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, emphasis added)

Who do you think is right? Keane or Gould? I say Gould was misquoted out of stupidity. What do you think?

For at least 80 transitional forms, look here

It just gets tiring, since this stuff has been addressed in here 4.5 billion times already. And you young earthers are supposed to roll over, give up, and cry uncle. And yes I am losing my patience and will probably leave soon to make 3D Catholic video games full time.

Phil P

 

[rjs1]

PhilVaz
You suggested looking at Babininski’s site.
I did.
It is virulently anti Christian.
Also, once again you have descended to the personal with your comment, “you young earthers…”. You do not know what my view of the age of the earth is.
I am getting the clear impression that any attempt to even question the theory of evolution is going to be met with extremely personal and derogatory attacks, so I will leave it to others to carry on the discussion.

 

[RobbyS]

Tom of Assisi:

One more evolution poll: (I don’t think this has been done yet), what are the consequences in our outlooks on life and faith that the belief in evolution carrries with it? If you believe in the theory that humans evolved from apes (uh, the common ancestor of humans and apes, I mean of course), what other beliefs are you likely to have? Just curious–and please feel free to expand on your answer as much as possible–the more clarity here the better.

Oh and–for the three of you who will call me an ignorant “fundamentalist”—got it --it’s understood, so you can refrain from name-calling and just stick to explaining your positions, thanks (in the spirit of good-form, I will also refrain from asking you if you want a bannana and calling you the product of monkey lust):

What are the ramifications in other aspects of life that belief in evolution carries with it?

I “believe” in evolution. On the other hand, I do not believe that it can ever be exactly traced. Despite this, there is an attempt by naturalists to minimize the differenmces between men and other anthropods, to treat men as simply smart apes, when the two species have relatively little in common. If we and they have a common ancestor, the divergence has grown so wide that no physical link can ever be found. Given that the remains of some hominids are relatively recent, the question that has been asked with no anser being given is what happened to make them extinct? Must we suppose that Neanderthals, for instance, were simply wiped out or assimilated? If so, what is the material basis for this assumption?

 

[PhilVaz]

RJS << It is virulently anti Christian. >>

I said look at that particular article showing that Denton has since become an evolutionist again. Babinski is a former Christian that is true, and that is partly because of Christian folks pushing creationism. When he found out how wrong that was, he chose agnosticism or atheism.

OK, read this article then, by a virulent vibrant vicious Christian

Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective

Gerry Keane is certainly young earth, so I figured you buy into that. If you don’t fantastic, now you’re onto something…

RJS << Also, once again you have descended to the personal with your comment, “you young earthers…”. You do not know what my view of the age of the earth is. >>

OK, do you believe the earth is 45, 4500, 14500, 45000, 450,000, 450,000,000, 450,000,000,000 or the true age at 4.5 billion years?

What’s wrong with “you young earthers.” You can call me “you theistic evolutionists” if you like.

Phil P