Accepting/rejecting evolution

Arv,

My response on the scriptural passages is too long to post as a comment on this thread. So Steve has graciously agreed to let me post it on the main page. I'm actually going to make two such posts. The first will address your biblical model and address what I see as its shortcomings. The second will put forth the model I believe the Bible presents, and the implications I think that has for us in interpreting Scripture with regards to science.

I hope you'll give me feedback on both posts. And I hope we can continue discussing the science on this thread. (I know, the ball's in my court on that one.)

All the best.

Thanks for the quick response, Arv, and for your thoughts.

I plan to reply to them, but first I think it might be more constructive for me to address some of the scriptural aspects of this debate. I don't think the cosmological model you're working from is the one that's represented in the Bible. So I intend to lay out what I think the biblical cosmological model is, and explain why I think the flood narrative fits easily into that model and not so easily into your own. Your thoughts, of course, would be appreciated.

Stay tuned, and God bless.

Hi AMW,
I will try to address your questions about the flood model the best I can.
1. The necessary quantity of water
We know that the Bible says the highest mountains were covered. I think we both start out with the assuption that the Bible account is accurate. I believe Psalm 104 clearly indicates by the Hebrew words used that God raised up mountain ranges and pushed down water basins, with a splitting apart action. Whatever height the "mountains" were before the flood, they were raised much higher. You seem to be assuming the mountains of Ararat existed before the flood, and were not created during the flood. I see no evidence for that.

How much evidence is there for erosion between the layers? I'm not aware that there is any evidence for that. How much evidence is there for bioturbation in the rock layers? Was the process not going on for a billion years?

As the waters of Noah's Flood started coming down, the topsoil would become muddy. As the animals began frantically moving around, their footprints would later be covered with silt and preserved. As worms and other creatures started to become covered, they would burrow and try to escape as long as they could. That is what I would expect to find with a flood model.

I am trusting creation scientists somewhat in my answer, I have read that if the high mountain ranges are reduced to foothills, and the deep oceans are raised up to the continental shelf, there is enough water in the oceans, and the underground reservoirs, to flood the earth to a mile and a half deep. I believe the Bible clearly indicates it happened, so I really haven't concerned myself much with how God did it. I know that will seem a little lame to evolutionists, just say: "God did it," but that is what I believe. Dr. Walt Brown, or Dr. Steven Austin could probably give you a better answer scientifically.

2. The pattern of sedimentary strata
I think the evolutionary geologists have more problems here than I do. I don't claim there should be twelve layers, they do. If there are some missing it doesn't affect my model, just theirs. My model just says that about 80% of the earth's crust was broken up and redeposited over a period of about 5 months through extreme water action. Nothing is missing in my model.

With the magnitude of the described flood conditions we should not find nice neat layers one on top of each other. It should be a mess. Let me just give you some facts about what is found.

The fact is, the actual evidence doesn't look anything like the chart. 2/3 of Earth’s land surface has only 5 or fewer of the 12 geologic periods in place. 80-85% of Earth’s land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in “correct” consecutive order .

In the book Historical Geology, by C. O. Dunbar, second edition, on pages 9 and 10 it says: "For more than a hundred years the geologists of all countries have been cooperating in this endeavor and the total thickness of the stratified rocks now recognized would exceed 500,000 feet (95 miles) if all the beds were directly superposed."

I asked one evolutionist why all twelve layers aren't represented and his response was: "The earth's crust would be too thick." Well, that's convenient.

How about the Lewis Overthrust in Montana? "Pre-Cambrian" rocks lie on top of "Cretaceous" rocks that are supposed to be 500 million years younger. This contradiction is explained by a thrust in which a piece of land 350 miles wide and six miles thick (about 10,000 square miles in area) picked itself up and slid 40 miles on top of the "Cretaceous" strata. The Pre-Cambrian on top of Cretaceous with all the other ages in between not represented. How did 9 supposed ages of earth's history disappear, and how did the older one get pushed all the way up on top of the younger one. There is no evidence of sliding by the way. Why is the one layer determined to be very young, and the other very old? Radioactive dating? No. The fossil evidence, or lack thereof. The elements that a rock consists of can tell you nothing about when that particular layer was formed, if the elements originated from rock that previously existed. The affect of heat and pressure on the elements also affect radioactive dating results, which make the tests somewhat unreliable.

So, the same process that supposedly formed both layers slowly through natural processes, for some reason was suspended from happening, just in this area, for about 400 million years, then started up again, but then something or someone caused the deck to get shuffled, and they were dealing from the bottom?

In the Franklin Overthrust in Texas, an Ordovician layer lies on top of a Cretaceous with the other ages not being represented.

In Crazy Cat Canyon in Texas, scientists found massive Ordovician limestones on top of Cretaceous strata. Evolutionary geologists suppose the Ordovician period is the age of sea life, and Cretaceous is the age of the dinosaurs. Why aren't the other supposed ages represented?

The Grand Canyon presents a much different kind of problem for evolutionary geologists. There is a gap between two layers of strata where several geological "ages" are missing, but in one place has interbedded layers of alternating Mississippian and Cambrian strata (three times I believe, in succession). The first time I realized the problem in the Grand Canyon was studying a geology book. It showed a picture of the Grand Canyon and listed the ages that are represented there, and which ages are not represented. That didn't make any sense to me.

Just one example of this, not to mention polystrate fossils, or fossils in the wrong layer, should cause honest scientists to go back and try to rethink their theory. Instead, they try to find ways of explaining away the evidence. I don't have to do that with my model.

If the evolutionary geologists are right about the slow formation of the layers over hundreds of millions of years through natural processes, I would predict we should be able to dig down anywhere and find those twelve layers in succession. However, the actual layers show nothing like that. My model predicts they shouldn't be there, their model should predict that they would.

You asked me this: "Now I put the question to you (once again): how does a global flood explain missing strata? How does it inverted strata? How does it explain repeated strata?" I am hoping you will get my point this time. My model doesn't require that those layers be there in the first place. My model doesn't have missing strata. My model doesn't assign an age to certain strata. My model doesn't have a problem with inverted or repeated strata either. Those are all problems for the other model, not mine. If it happened through water action during a great flood, that is actually what my model predicts should be there.

Imagine layers of sediment being laid down, one on top of the other. We will assign them A, B, C, and D as you did. All four layers have been laid down in that order. Water current, perhaps produced partly from a volcanic eruption some distance away, moving from left to right, pulls off layer A and then redeposits it. More action pulls off part of B sediment, and deposits it now on top of the A sediment which was already deposited. Later, part of the former B and C are now pulled along and deposited on top of the other sediment. You now have B on top, followed by C, then B again, on top of A.

Later, part of D sediment is carried along by water action and deposited directly on top of a layer of A somewhere else down the line. We now have a layer of D on top of A with B and C not even represented. That is what my model would predict, and that is what is found in the actual rock layers we have today. Violent water action will do that. Slow gradual natural processes should produce one distinct layer on top of another, in a distinct order. That is what should be predicted by slow natural processes.

I believe the plate movement we see today is mostly left over from the flood. Because it is happening today does not prove it has happened that way for millions of years, that is only assumed.

3. The pattern of fossils
I believe the biggest factor would be habitat, not density, when it comes to land creatures, although that is also a factor that could produce an anomaly. The ability to swim would be another factor. Anything that did not get burried quickly and managed to survive, their bodies would begin to decay and be pulled apart by the flood water action. I believe that is why we have massive fossil graveyards with just pieces of different kinds of animals that were buried in the mud, later the mud turned to stone. There are no evidence of teeth marks in any of those bodies that were torn apart and burried in the mud. Remember, roadkill does not turn into a fossil on a regular basis, it takes sudden deep burial. Try to explain these massive fossil graveyards without a catastrophy of some sort.

4. The pattern of existing species
You mention wholly mammoths, Polar bears, penguins, caribou, desert cacti, the list goes on and on, and say "None of these species are well suited (or could even survive?) a tropical climate." You perhaps did not realize wholly mammoths are discovered frozen in an upright position in northern Siberia with undigested tropical vegetation in their mouth and stomach. Why are creatures able to adapt and survive drastic changes in the environment? Natural selection can only act on those biological properties that already exist, it is a process that cannot create biological properties in order to meet adaptational needs. The life forms have to be pre-programed with the genetic information needed for those types of changes, or they will never happen. After Noah's flood, every life form that stepped off the ark had to adapt to a very hostile environment, much different than what the earth was like before the flood. Do you suppose God, in His intelligent forethought, would realize they needed to be able to change to adapt? Humans can adapt to changing from one type of habitat, to an extremely different one, still today. How did they evolve this genetic ability?

As to how certain life forms could survive a pre-flood environment, or a flood, you will have to consult the One who designed them, I have wondered some of the same things myself. If He could speak a complex universe into existence from nothing, He could probably pull it off though, and I just assume that He did.

5. Dendrochronology
I just want to mention a couple of things to consider. The oldest living tree is the bristlecone pine, which is approximately 4400 years old. Before the flood, if there were tropical like conditions, very little seasonal change, and apparently not even storms, what affect might this have on tree growth? Take care my friend. May the Lord richly bless you as you endeavor for Him.
In His Service,
Arv

Arv,

I'm limiting myself to five difficulties I see with a global flood model as you present it. There are many, many more I could bring up, but I prefer the discussion not run too far afield. For the moment I'll take as given that the Bible teaches very different geologies in the pre- and post-deluge eras, but I actually disagree with you on this point. I will probably post another comment dealing strictly with Biblical passages, but that's for another time.

On to my arguments against your model.

1. The necessary quantity of water
This is very straightforward. At present, water covers about 71% of the earth's surface, and the amount of atmospheric and subterranean water wouldn't cover the highest mountains to a depth of 20 feet (Genesis 7:20). Our current Geography is impossible to flood on the Biblical scale.

Your model anticipates this by arguing that the pre-deluge earth was much lower, with few if any mountains, which came about during and after the flood. But a straightforward reading of Genesis 7-8 requires that at the very least the Mountains of Ararat were covered by the flood waters. Here are some very simple back of the envelope calculations.

The earth is more or less spherical. The volume of a sphere is calculated by the formula:

4/3 * pi * r^3

Pi, of course is ~3.14 and r is the radius of the spehre. Estimating the necessary water to cover the highest mountains of Ararat is pretty straightforward. Earth has a radius of 6,371 km. Mount Ararat stands at an elevation of 5.165 km. We just calculate the volume of a sphere with radius (6,731 +5.165), then subtract the volume of a sphere with radius 6,731. If you run the calculations, you'll find that it would take about 2.64 trillion cubic kilometers of water to cover the earth. Of course, this assumes there are no other mountains or hills on the face of the earth, which we know is wrong. So you have to adjust the above down somewhat. 29% of the earth's surface is land, so you could be unnecessarily conservative and assume all of it is as high as Mt Ararat, thus disposing for the need of 29% of the volume of water. This leaves you with about 1.87 trillion cubic kilometers of water.

The trouble is, the Earth's entire water supply is only about 1.36 trillion or 1.4 trillion cubic kilometers. Where did the extra water come from, and where did it go?

2. The pattern of sedimentary strata
Numerous times you have insisted that missing strata and strata that our out of order cannot be explained by standard geological models. I'll re-cap my previous responses. Imagine an idealized set of strata, A - B - C - D. (Right to left in the sequence should be understood as top to bottom of the sediments, A indicates the youngest stratum, D the oldest.) Natural forces could disrupt this pattern in three ways of which I am aware (and actual Geologists might know of more). First, erosion. Finding strata A - B - D can be explaind as deposition of D, deposition of C, erosion of C, followed by deposition of B and then A. A missing stratum (or set of missing strata) is not a problem for standard Geology. Second, folding. Finding strata D - C - B - A - B - C - D can be explained by deposition of D, then of C, then of B, then of A, then the whole thing gets folded onto itself. Third, thrusting, in which compression on a plate causes part of it to break and then slide on top of itself. Finding strata A - B - A - B - C - D can be explained as deposition of D, then C, then B, then A, then an overthrust.

Standard Geology would not (to my knowledge) be able to explain a random assortment of strata, like C - A - D - B. But none of your examples above seem to posit random strata assortments, just missing strata, or repeated strata, or inverted strata; all of which can be explained as above.

Now I put the question to you (once again): how does a global flood explain missing strata? How does it inverted strata? How does it explain repeated strata?

3. The pattern of fossils
Flood geology is supposed to explain the fossil record as the result of hydrological sorting during the Noachian Deluge. This would suggest that we should find fossils sorted through the geological column on the basis of density/bouancy/size, etc. But we find no such thing. The apatosaurus was massive, around 75 feet long; the scutellosaurus was comparatively diminutive at less than 4 feet. Yet both are found in Jurassic strata. The Basilosaurus was another massive creature, about 60 feet long. Miacis, on the other hand, was a small mammal, about a foot long. Both are found in Eocene strata, much later (i.e., higher) than the Jurasic strata. Why don't we see the apatosaurus and basilosaurus in one range of strata, and the scutellosaurus and miacis in another range?

But it's even worse than that. Apatosaurus eggs, and infants, and adolescents are all found in the same range of strata as the adults. Ditto the other three species (except that basilosaurus and miacis didn't lay eggs). Surely apatosaurus eggs aren't the same density/bouancy/size as the adults. So why do we find them clustered together? Why isn't there a range of layers that just has dinosaur eggs of all kinds, then a range of layers for infants, then adolescents, then adults?

And on top of that, we have trace fossils, like footprints in triassic strata, or worm-like tunnels in Cambrian strata. This is not a problem at all for slow, steady deposition. But how can mass death and sudden deposition explain such phenomena?

4. The pattern of existing species
If the Earth, as originally created, was basically uniformly tropical, and mutations can only degrade the genome and cause harmful effects, why do we have decidedly non-tropical organisms? Why did the wooly mammoths you mention above have long hair, a thick layer of fur, insulating fat deposits and small ears (relative to other elephantine organisms)? What good would any of that have been in a tropical climate? Polar bears, penguins, caribou, desert cacti, the list goes on and on. None of these species are well suited (or could even survive?) a tropical climate. What were they doing in the pre-flood world? And if they weren't there, how did they get here short of super-evolution?

There are also plenty of organisms specialized for deep-sea dwelling, like deep sea anglerfish and giant tube worms. These are organisms built to live at depths or 3,000 feet to 5,000 feet or more. Too little water pressure and they will die. How did they survive the pre-flood oceans?

Just as importantly, there are lots of specialized shallow-sea organisms, like corals and tidal sponges. How did such organisms survive the flood?

5. Dendrochronology
This one may seem to be out of left field, but bear with me. Everyone knows that, with periodical exceptions, trees add a layer of wood, or "ring" every year. The exceptions are that in very good years a tree may be able to grow two extra rings, while in very bad years it may skip adding a ring altogether. And even in the majority of years, when just a single layer is added, the width of the ring is dependent on the growing conditions. Under good growing conditions the ring is thicker, under less favorable conditions it is thinner. This produces a distinctive pattern of rings for a given tree. Unsurprisingly, trees of the same species in the same general region have very similar ring patterns.

Trees of various ages will show different patterns, but for the years in which their lifetimes have overlapped, you will find the same ring pattern. So let's say you have one tree that lived from 1850 to 1950, and another that lived from 1900 to 2000. (Let's also say they lived in reasonably close proximity to one another.) Take a cross-section of each, and the ring patterns will match up for about 51 rings, corresponding to the years 1900 - 1950. (With double rings or skipped rings there may be more or fewer than 51 rings, but it would be pretty close.) The two cross-sections together will give you a pattern consisting of about 151 rings. Now suppose you find another cross-section, and you don't know for sure when the tree first lived. But you see that the cross-section has 101 rings, and the last 25 of them fit the 1850 - 1925 pattern from your two original trees. You can now tell that this third tree put on its first ring in 1775. You have also expanded your pattern of rings. This is known as dendrochronology, and it's like a bar code for tree age.

Now let's say you find a fourth cross-section that has 100 rings they don't match any of the ring patterns from the 1775 - 2000 period you have already found. You know that it's older than the other trees, but you can't say exactly how much older. It may have died in 1770, or in 1600, or in 500 B.C. Any of those dates would explain the lack of a match-up in the patterns. But one thing you can say for sure: it died in or before the year 1774, or there would be some overlap.

So what does this have to do with the Deluge? Simple. You claim that the flood occured about 4,300 years ago. Surely such a flood would kill the world's trees off, as even any that weren't uprooted couldn't survive 5 months or so of being submerged in sea-water. Thus, all dendrochronologies should have a break in them at about the 4250 BP point. (BP = "Before Present," and corresponds to the year 1950). Yet there are dendrochronologies dating back as far as 10,000 years with no break in the pattern. How could this have happened with a recent, global, catastrophic flood?

My apologies for the length of this comment, but I'm trying to be thorough in my explanations. I look forward to your response(s).

Thanks for your response, Arv, it's very helpful. I probably won't have a reply for it until after this weekend, as I'm planning to spend plenty of time with my family celebrating something we can probably both agree on: our freedoms in this great country.

As for defamation, all I meant was that I know nothing about the family in question, or the particulars of the alleged find, so I wouldn't want to say anything against them. They may be decent, sincere folks, or they may be charlatans. I really wouldn't know, so I'll keep my mouth shut about them.

Anyway, I'll give your comment some thought and write back Monday or Tuesday of next week.

God bless.

AMW,
My ideas for what the earth was like before and during the flood I formed from science and the Bible. Based upon Psalm 104 there would have been no high mountain ranges before the flood, more like foothills probably. There is scientific evidence to indicate the earth was tropical like from pole to pole, with giant redwood trees having been found under the icecaps at the South Pole. Tropical vegetation has been found under the ice in Siberia and farther north. It's real hard to grow a desert under a flood, the Sahara has been growing for about 4300 years according to science, which would line up with the flood account.
I believe most of the earth crust was broken up and redeposited during the flood except for the polar regions which I believe became very cold and frozen very quickly with the break up of the water canopy that existed around earth's atmosphere. Wholly mammoths have been discovered with undigested tropical vegetation in their mouth and stomach, frozen in an upright position. Things apparently got very cold very quickly.
Why would you consider trying to defame the character of a family in Kentucky? It sounds like you have your mind made up and not anyone or anything will change that.
I sent two newspaper articles from the early 1900's to a geologist in Ohio which gave reports of finding human artifacts in the wrong layers. He refused to give the articles any credibility because they were old. He said in 30 years of field research as a geologist he could tell me that human artifacts are never found in the wrong layers, regardless of what those articles said.
I asked how he dated a rock layer when they found a human artifact in it. and he replied, "We date the layer by the artifact." I asked if that were true, how would he ever possibly find one he thought was in a wrong layer, if the dated the layer "by" the artifact that was found in it. He just got angry and called me names and attacked my character. That's the response I usually get from evolutionary scientists. Do you see the problem with that type of research methods? Date the fossil by the rock, and rock by the fossil. That is why they would almost never be reported by an evolutionist. Well, of course it would cause him to lose his funding and ruin his career, as it has others.
The trilobite fossil found smashed in a human footprint was verified by a respected scientist, but I know you reject it anyway. So I won't try any further to open a mind closed that shut. We'll move on to the geology and fossils.

Arv,

Before I address your comments on the nature of the flood, Psalm 104 and missing strata, I'd like to get a better idea of what you think the earth was like before and during the flood. For instance, were there any mountains before the flood? Deserts? Chalk cliffs? Ocean trenches? Or are some or all of these a result of the flood? Did, say, Mount Everest exist prior to the flood, or was it thrust up during the flood, or did it come about afterward? Having an idea of your working model would be very helpful to me in this discussion.

Regarding OOPArts I really don't think we're going to get anywhere on this topic, and I think it's a bit of a distraction. The artifacts that are clearly human never seem to be found in situ by qualified scientists, and the artifacts that are found in situ are not so obviously of human origin. The last two examples you provide above seem to me to be fairly well debunked as genuine OOPArts. I know nothing of the family in Kentucky, and don't intend to defame their characters here.

My main objection is that if there truly were human artifacts in pre-pleistocene strata, bona fide scientists should be finding them all the time. You may argue that they do, but their worldview compels them to discard and/or cover up the evidence. But even granting this (which I don't) scientists should also have been finding human artifacts in pre-pleistocene strata back in the 19th century, when most scientists were Christians and many geologists assumed that the Noachian Flood explained the earth's features. Surely at that time the worldview of the scientific establishment would have promoted such artifacts as unambiguously human in origin.

You may respond to this line of reasoning, but I consider this my final statement on the point. I am, perhaps, too skeptical, but I think we could make more progress on geology and the flood, as that topic deals with firmer scientific theory and facts.

Dear AMW,
I want you to think about the the magnitude of Noah's Flood for a moment. Forty days and nights of heavier rain than we have probably ever seen, then God stopped it. The Bible says God stretched the earth out upon the waters. Waters from below kept coming up for about five months. The break up of the earth's crust and being redeposited. Ocean currents and high tides now with no coastlines to stop them. It was not a case of the waters came down, the flood waters came up, and then they evaporated away. This was a violent catastrophe that went on for about 5 months. The Bible indicates volcanic activity during the flood as the fountains of the "great deep" broke open. Volcanic eruptions can send out debris much faster than water currents or flow.

In Psalm 104 it describes the last part of the flood when the Bible says that God spoke, and something began to happen. Most of the sediments had now been laid down, and the water action was subsiding. Now those sediments were being pulled upward to slowly form mountain ranges, in one steady, very slow, pull. Deep valleys began to slowly sink down, and according to the Hebrew language, there was a splitting apart, along with the pushing down. The waters were pulled slightly upward, but began to settle down into the valleys God had slowly prepared for them.

The reason Psalm 104 doesn't refer to the six days of creation is because of the language of verse 9: " Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth." If this was referring to the waters of day two that covered the earth, it would not have allowed a flood to take place. I believe this verse was referring to God's promise in Genesis 9:11-17. There also were no mountain ranges mentioned in the six days of creation.

I can't give you a definite model as to what the layers should look like as the result of a catastrophe of this magnitude. Polystrate fossils would be predicted by such a flood. So would human artifacts in different layers.

The missing strata I referred to is in the layers of the earth's crust above sea level. Only about 5% has twelve layers. Most of the crust has only 3 to 5 layers, which should not be if they were laid down through natural processes over hundreds of millions of years. The point is the actual evidence doesn't look anything like the chart, but is put together from bits and pieces from all over the world. Supposedly older layers are often found lying on supposedly younger layers. In Glacier National Park there is PreCambrian limestone on top of Cretaceous shale that extends over 200 miles long and 35 miles wide that shows no evidence of this large "older" layer being shoved on top of the "younger" layer.
As for the picture of the Cretaceous trilobites, I just looked under Google images and was looking for Cambrian trilobites but found some pictures on fossil websites from other layers clear up to Permian, then I found a site that had Cretaceous trilobites. The point was trilobites are listed in the science textbooks as index fossils for Cambrian strata only, when that isn't true. The pictures of trilobite fossils from the other layers look identical to the Cambrian trilobites, including the Cretaceous ones.
You really didn't say where all the dirt came from for the layers above the Cambrian, or if life could live on this planet if the crust was only that thick.

As for the Ooparts. I have interviewed a family in Kentucky that found a rock with a human carved on it in the middle of a coal deposit. When they told local scientists where they found it they were told they were lying and the scientists refused to investigate the location of the find, nor would they speak with them any further. The family just wanted to know if it might be valuable. Check out the London artifact found in London, TX in 1934 I believe. The rock layer was supposedly 200 million years old because of the index fossils. And the trilobite fossil smashed in a human shoeprint found by by William Meister of Kearns, Utah June 1, 1968. Dr. H.H. Doelling of Utah’s Geological Survey verified it was not a fake.
I would recommend checking out 32 Questions For Evolutionists by Ariel Roth.

Arv,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.

I didn't contact ICR, but I did find a video online in which creationists in Texas sorted strata through liquefaction. The problems I see with this mechanism are 1) it doesn't account for trace fossils, 2) it doesn't offer a compelling reason why fossils should be sorted in a way consistent with a progression of species instead of by density, 3) it would seem to predict a single stratum of each type of rock. Also, you need some mechanism to produce the vibration necessary for liquefaction. Presumably that would be a series of earthquakes. But those earthquakes would have to be going on for the entirety of the sedimentation process, and I'm not sure what the mechanism for that would be. Also, the Bible doesn't mention any earthquakes.

With regards to missing strata, I'd first like to know where under the ocean there are missing strata? My guess is that the missing strata to which you have referred are on that 20% or so of the earth's crust that is currently above sea level. And again, I see no contradiction between missing strata and current geological theories. Erosion can remove strata while they are near the top of the column, followed by additional strata laid down; resulting in missing strata. Or the process of sedimentation can be halted for some extended period of time (drying of a lake or sea, for instance); again resulting in missing strata. What I don't get is how a global flood accounts for missing strata. Millions of layers layed down all over the earth in rapid succession. Why should we see layer X under layer Y under layer Z in one part of the globe, but elsewhere we just see X under layer Z, with no layer Y in between?

As for folding by the process you describe, by what mechanism would the flood make these successive piles? Did we see such structures following, say, Hurricane Katrina and the massive Asian Tsunami? Furthermore, that mechanism could only explain layers where the fold is vertical, as in this photo. But it has a hard time accounting for this one or this one or this one.

I think that Psalm 104 could just as easily be argued to refer to the creation week instead of the flood. But beyond any textual analysis, the marine fossils on mountaintops are explained by the development of mountains through folding in the earth's crust. Some areas that were once under water are now very high in elevation.

And while we're on the subject of marine fossils, do you have those pictures of Cretaceous and Cambrian trilobites up online anywhere? I'd like to see them. If you really have a Cretaceous trilobite on your hands you could presumably sell it for a tidy sum, since the last trilobites are supposed to have gone extinct in the Permian, about 100 million years earlier. And your umbrage at using trilobites as index fossils seems to stem from your unwillingness to accept that the term "trilobite" encompasses a vast number of organisms. There are 17,000 known trilobite species. They aren't all found in the same rock strata. So if you find fossils of a particular species in a given layer of rock, you can narrow the range of the stratum's age considerably.

On to straight-line strata. Sedimentation tends to build up at lower elevations. If you were to sprinkle a layer of sedimentation uniformly across the face of the earth, you would not end up with a layer matching the countours of the earth's current surface. You would instead end up with little accumulation on mountaintops and significant accumulation in valleys and on plains. These accumulations would tend to form planes intersecting with significant rises in the earth's crust.

As for the OOPArts, you are quite right that I probably wouldn't believe the scientists that wrote "Forbidden Archeology." In the first place, Michael Cremo does not appear to hold a terminal degree, and so I have difficulty calling him a scientist. In the second place, Richard L. Thompson has his PhD in mathematics, not archeology. In the third place, their work has been universally panned by actual archeologists. Also, I looked a little closer at that website you linked to. I found three items that reportedly have ages dated in the millions of years. I won't go into detail here, but suffice it to say I don't find any of them to be solid evidence of human artifacts in supposedly ancient rock layers. Get me a picture of an arrow-head in situ in pre-Pleistocene stone, get actual archeologists and geologists to confirm that it is in fact an arrow-head in pre-pleistocene stone, and I'll accept it as solid evidence for your hypothesis.

Mike,

Thank you. It may not have been Arv's intention to appear as a scientist with a PhD, but he had me convinced. I was duped. Thank you for unmasking him.

Arv,

I greatly appreciate your honesty and accomodation in this matter. Despite the time restraints on the both of us, I look forward to a discussion on the scientific evidence for/against creation/evolution in the future.

In fact, you are more than welcome to visit my own blog at any time.

Best,

Mike

Hi Mike,
You were absolutely right about my not crediting my source. I had watched the other videos, and wasn't sure there was a good answer for their claims. When I found it, because of time restraints, I hurriedly copied and pasted the answer. It should have been in quotation marks, crediting the source. Thank you for calling me out on that. Because of time restraints again, we'll discuss the science later.
By the way, I didn't buy my degree, and there was hundreds of hours of research and work involved, but the actual college training is only two years. I'll drop the doctor for our discussions. Take care.

Arv,

Let's put our degrees aside for a moment: your honorary doctorate from "a small bible college in West Virginia," and my honorary doctorate that I just purchased from this guy in Barbados for $495 (plus s&h).

We have a lot in common: neither you nor I have academic degrees in theology or the biological sciences. Because of this, we both rely on people other than ourselves to provide us with their professional (or not) assessment of nature and/or God.

Here's where we differ: I wear my influences on my sleeve and credit my sources. You didn't. That's why I called you out, not because you're a special creationist. In other theological circles, I called out a fellow preterist for plagiarism and pretty much ended his writing career (if you can call plagiarism "writing").

I have found that usually if an evolutionist doesn’t have a scientific answer to the actual science that is being discussed, they resort to name-calling and attacks on a person’s character.

Let me make this very clear: my attack on your character was fully justified and had nothing to do with the subject under discussion. I call 'em like I see 'em. Heck, I'd call out God if I caught Him plagiarizing, despite the fact that I'd be on my knees in complete and abject agreement with Him.

Now that that's behind us, let's talk science.

No, my degree is from a small bible college in West Virginia. I am not a scientist and I have no real credentials, so my posts should be easy to respond to. I have found that usually if an evolutionist doesn't have a scientific answer to the actual science that is being discussed, they resort to name-calling and attacks on a person's character. Maybe that isn't what you were trying to do.
I am not a scientist, so part of my one post contained information from someone who is, in response to the videos you were relying on from other people, in areas that you do not have expertise in either, and I should have given the link so you could check out the whole article. The rest of my posts were not, and I am still waiting for someone to at least make an attempt at discussing the actual science.

Who granted your “honorary doctorate”? Please tell me it was from a respected and accredited secular or religious institution.

I hope it was an English Institution . . .

Dr. (?) Edgeworth,

Did you write the following (found here)?

My degree is actually a Doctor of Divinity degree, and is honorary. Actually, did you know in England an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree has often been in higher regard than an earned degree? And Darwin's only degree was in theology. Charles Lyell is called the father of geology and his only degree was in law. Since I got this degree I found out I still have to pay the same amount for a Diet Coke. What good is this thing anyway? Well, actually they do let me teach a two-credit college course occasionally. I really enjoy teaching.

Who granted your "honorary doctorate"? Please tell me it was from a respected and accredited secular or religious institution. Otherwise, your doctorate carries no weight here, especially when it comes to discussing science.

Sincerely,

Mike

Dr. Edgeworth,

You wrote:

Pseudogenes are often referred to in the scientific literature as nonfunctional DNA, and are regarded as junk. But more scientists are now conceding that this is far from true for many pseudogenes. Failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism. It is also impossible to rule out protein expression based solely on sequence information, as DNA messages can be altered by editing the transcribed RNA, skipping parts of the sequence, etc. Moreover, the inability to code for a protein useful to an organism hardly exhausts other possible functions pseudogenes may have.

Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence that Alu (a SINE) sequences are involved in gene regulation, such as in enhancing and silencing gene activity, or can act as a receptor-binding site — this is surely a precedent for the functionality of other types of pseudogenes.

Can you explain for me why this is word-for-word from an article by Pierre Jerlström titled "Pseudogenes: Are They Non-Functional?", first appearing in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(3):15, 2000? At least you were smart enough not to include the parenthetical "(see below)" after the first paragraph. Oh yeah ... most of the rest of your response is contained in the same article.

When a subject is beyond one's expertise, it may seem like a good idea at the time to make people think that you're smart on the subject by copying others' work. But that doesn't work too well in this Internet age. Come back when you no longer feel you have to parrot someone else's stuff.

Sincerely,

Mike

Dear AMW,
I will try to answer the questions you asked of me. If you contact ICR I think they can give you the name of the video they produced of the hydrologic sorting experiment their scientists performed. On the video you will see just about every type of rock formation we see today using soil, and water pressure behind glass.

You said that: "sedimentary layers generally accumulate under water." That would be the top 80% of the earth's crust. You asked: "why are there missing strata all over the world if the layers were all laid down at about the same time when the entire earth was covered in water?" I don't think you comprehend the problem of missing strata. It is only a problem if you say there should be twelve ages represented by twelve distinct layers. Do the actual layers look anything like the ficticious "geologic column" chart?

You say that layers out of order are the result of "folding" through tectonic forces. Do you know what happens if you try to fold stratified rock? If you pour a type of soil on the floor it will make a small pile. Pour a different type on top of that, and continue with several more types of soil, it will form a bigger pile. Wet the soil down, wait a while, then use a blade to cut through the soft pliable mud and separate, you will have what looks like folded rock after it hardens. This was on the video I mentioned.

In Psalm 104:6-9 it describes the later stages of the flood when God spoke and mountain ranges slowly rose up, deep valleys slowly began to sink down and were split apart as the waters began to run off the earth into the deep oceans created. What should we expect to find on the top of the highest mountain ranges? The sediments from under the water that were lifted up. Could that be why trilobite fossils are found on top of all the highest mountain rages, or were there just ancient sea-food restaurants up there?

You wondered why layers wouldn’t form mostly in straight lines if they were laid down over time. If the part of the earth's crust that we are living on today someday becomes stratified, would it be more likely to form in a straight line, or follow the contour of the earth's surface? If the Cambrian strata represents what the earth's crust was like 600 million years ago, would that provide enough gravity to sustain life? Where did the dirt for all the other layers come from?

I have a picture of a Cretaceous trilobite that looks similar to a Cambrian trilobite. I have a feeling there were different kinds of trilobites, some living mostly in shallower water. But the point is, they are still being used as index fossils for 500-600 million year old rock. The idea being that that is when trilobites lived, died, and became extinct. Then how come they are found in rock layers supposedly 400 million years younger? Some scientists claim to have found living ones. Why are they still being used as index fossils?

As you admitted yourself, you only checked out part of one website for out of place artifacts. I doubt if a dozen other websites would change your mind any, especially since you didn't check out all of them on the first website. I doubt if you would believe the scientists that wrote the book "Forbidden Archeology" either. They were interviewed on NBC in the two-hour special in prime time. I have interviewed people in Kentucky who escavate coal. They found human artifacts in coal supposedly 300 million years old. The local scientists accused them of lying, and wouldn't investigate. It was a rock with a human carved on it. Another case of a person's beliefs dictating their science.

Do you know why more human artifacts are not being reported today in the wrong layers? I asked a geologist how they determined the age of the rock they find an artifact in. He replied: "We date the layer by the artifact." That might explain a few things.

Arv,

You've thrown a lot at us; more than I intend to address in my comment. I'll address your latest comment.

Fossil remains align themselves in neatly segregated strata, exactly as a great flood would predict also.

Have you ever tried producing neatly segregated strata my mixing multiple types of sediment in water, disturbing the water as would occur in a flood, and allowing the sediments to settle? It's a simple experiment, and if it forms neatly segregated strata as you suggest, you've got a publishable result on your hands. You can see one guy's results here. But he's an atheist, so maybe he's biased. Perhaps you would have better luck. I'd honestly be interested to see any results of your experiments.

Why are there missing strata all over the world?

Because of erosion and because sedimentary layers generally accumulate under water, and due to various tectonic movements, a given part of the earth's surface is sometimes under water, sometimes not. A better question is, why are there missing strata all over the world if the layers were all laid down at about the same time when the entire earth was covered in water?

Why are there numerous examples of strata in the wrong order?

Folding. The strata aren't "out of order" in the sense that they are in some sort of random order. It's more accurate to say they are in reverse order of what we would expect, which is consistent with the strata being laid down over time; then twisted or folded through tectonic forces.

Why does only about 5% of the earth’s surface contain even 3 to 5 of the time periods represented?

Erosion and the variable location of water relative to a given spot of the earth's crust. (And perhaps other processes I'm not aware of.)

Why do the layers form mostly in straight lines if not by hydrologic sorting?

I don't understand why they wouldn't form mostly straight lines if they were laid down over time.

If trilobites are index fossils for 500-600 million yer old rock, why are trilobite fossils found all the way up into the Cretaceous Period?

Because trilobites were a very successful class of organisms. Moreover, the trilobites we find in later periods are not the same as those we find in the earlier periods. Here is a fossil of a Cambrian trilobite. And here is a fossil of a Devonian trilobite. That looks like evolution to me.

There was a special on NBC about 10 years ago that documented human artifacts found in the wrong layers in the basement of the Smithsonian for one I believe.

I'm not familiar with the special, but I wouldn't put NBC at the top of my list for scientific sources. Do you know if the artifacts were found in situ? And if they were, why are there scientists passing up the fame and fortune they would have if they brought out the evidence for humans in the earliest times?

I would suggest using a search engine and typing in “Ooparts” (Out of place artifacts). You might start with: http://www.ooparts.nl.</i>

I confess to not looking through every example on that website. But of the 5 or so that I did look at, none indicated human artifacts in pre-pleistocene strata.

Dear Cliff,
Fossil remains align themselves in neatly segregated strata, exactly as a great flood would predict also. Why are there missing strata all over the world? Why are there numerous examples of strata in the wrong order? Why does only about 5% of the earth's surface contain even 3 to 5 of the time periods represented? Why do the layers form mostly in straight lines if not by hydrologic sorting? If trilobites are index fossils for 500-600 million yer old rock, why are trilobite fossils found all the way up into the Cretaceous Period? There was a special on NBC about 10 years ago that documented human artifacts found in the wrong layers in the basement of the Smithsonian for one I believe. I would suggest using a search engine and typing in "Ooparts" (Out of place artifacts). You might start with: www.ooparts.nl

Dear Steve,
I've watched all three of the videos. Gordon Glover and Kenneth Miller are apparently unaware of the fact that it has been proven scientifically that many of the so-called "pseudogenes" are not non-functional.

Pseudogenes are often referred to in the scientific literature as nonfunctional DNA, and are regarded as junk. But more scientists are now conceding that this is far from true for many pseudogenes. Failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism. It is also impossible to rule out protein expression based solely on sequence information, as DNA messages can be altered by editing the transcribed RNA, skipping parts of the sequence, etc. Moreover, the inability to code for a protein useful to an organism hardly exhausts other possible functions pseudogenes may have.

Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence that Alu (a SINE) sequences are involved in gene regulation, such as in enhancing and silencing gene activity, or can act as a receptor-binding site — this is surely a precedent for the functionality of other types of pseudogenes.

There are major contradictions between molecular and morphological phylogenies; DNA sequence similarities between pseudogenes do not create self-evident truths, but need to be interpreted. For example, they cannot tell us anything about their common ancestors, even if such indeed existed. Also, a large fraction of most pseudogenes differ considerably from their alleged parent genes which makes the interpretation of the data questionable.

As the function of more pseudogenes is being uncovered by testable and repeatable science, it is evident that these genetic elements, which are copiously spread in the genomes of different organisms, have been created with purpose.

One major question that comparative anatomy and common descent cannot answer is: Where did the DNA code come from? DNA code is information. Any form of information known to man has to have four elements or it is not information. There is a sender, a receiver, an information code, and an agreement between the sender and receiver concerning the code.

In every form of information known to man this is true, except evolutionists want us to believe that in the most complex information code known to man, DNA, no sender exists, but it somehow originates from matter and energy. You can believe that if you like, but don't call it science.

Dr. Edgeworth,

There is all the difference in the world between scientists being predisposed ("biased") to believe/distrust something because it jibes with/contradicts an earlier body of evidence vs. creationists feeling they must believe something is true or false based upon whether or not it jibes with their predetermined interpretation of Scripture. I think this is quite clear from both mine and Cliff's posts.

In all honestly I don't have much interest in debating you on the fine points of science. Firstly, you will not be convinced because of your need to believe the Bible's account as historical fact, and secondly (chiefly), because I recognize that I am no scientist either, but I do learn from those who are. So I will ask you how you refute the solid evidence for common descent from DNA presented in this short video talking about how well the genetic picture of taxonomy matches up so well with the picture given by comparative anatomy (based upon the notion of common descent), and especially this video showing more striking evidence of common descent among humans and other animals; both of these are from my friend Gordon Glover. If you watch neither of these, see Kenneth Miller's presentation showing one exciting piece of evidence of our genetic relationship with primates.

Sincerely, thank you for coming by and I hope you find the truth before you convince too many young people that either creationism is true or Christianity's invalid, because, like I was, most of them will end up being convinced of the historical and scientific untenability of the Creation account as history.

"That would also include human artifacts in every strata (which have been found). Check the basements of museums, they would be the ones that are in bags with a label on them calling them an anomaly."

Dr. Edgeworth,

Please supply us with some evidence for this claim. If such "anomolies" were as ubiquitous as you imply, I should think I would have heard of this phenomenon before now.

Also, could you explain how it is that human artifacts are distributed broadly throughout the geological column, while fossil remains align themselves in neatly segregated strata, exactly as evolution would predict.

Creationists do not expect to find birds and reptiles in the same strata. Fossils should be found according to habitat, body density, and the ability to survive a great flood. Factor that in and it explains everything you will find in the sedimentary layers (laid down by water). That would also include human artifacts in every strata (which have been found). Check the basements of museums, they would be the ones that are in bags with a label on them calling them an anomaly.

Mutations do not produce new biological properties. Almost all mutations are harmful and cause a net loss of genetic information over time. Natural selection works most often in a way to prevent change. Evolution has no mechanisms to create new information. No evolutionist has an answer to explain the origin of genetic information. Survival of the fittest can never explain the arrival of the fittest.

By the way, what an eye is, how it operates, and how to treat it for disease is pure science. How we got an eye is speculative at best, and historical in nature, and should not be considered as observable, empirical, experimental science.

There are no observable life forms that are clearly in transition today, nor are there any clear transitional fossils to prove that microevolution happened in the past. You can believe they did exist, but that may be more a philosophical choice than a scientific one.

Mr. Edgeworth,

You are correct that natural selection can only act on existing biological properties, and cannot create them, but you seem to take this to mean that evolution lacks a mechanism. But mutation can create new biological properties, and/or fashion novel properties from previous properties. Natural selection then determines which of these properties stick around in the gene pool.

As for the fossils, the evolutionist expects to find transitional forms between, say, reptile and bird in strata *below* strata in which we find more modern forms of bird. Creationists should expect to find them all in the same strata, since the strata were, in their view, laid down at roughly the same time in a single cataclysmic global flood. Needless to say, we find the pattern evolutionists would expect.

Your whole argument could be used for either position. Evolutionists believe creationists base most of their beliefs on chosen beliefs/opinions, and they base most of what they believe on evidence-based beliefs/opinions, but the creationists believe the same thing about the evolutionists.

Evolutionists believe all the small changes, considered to be microevolution, are just steps to what eventually produces macroevolution, a change from one distinct kind of creature into another distinct kind. Creationists believe all the small changes are a result of the creatures being programed by their designer to be able to adapt and survive. The fact is, natural selection can only work on those biological properties that already exist, and cannot create biological properties in order to meet adaptational needs.

Is adaptation and speciation a random chance happening, or a designed creature feature? Either way, both are viewing this evidence through a preconceived bias, not just one of them, and both have the same evidence.

The only evidence in question is that "missing link" fossil that turns a reptile into a bird, or a chimpanzee into a human, and if the fossil record is a result of a great flood, as the creationists claim, this fossil wouldn't mean anything either. Similar features for similar functions in totally different creatures are viewed either as evidence for a common ancestor, or for a common designer? If a creator and designer used speciation and adaptation as part of his plan, how could you tell the difference between that and evolution? Both sides have chosen beliefs, and evidence-based beliefs. Neither side has an advantage over the other. But that won't stop either side from making claims to the contrary. Try to find a completely neutral and unbiased person (lot's of luck), that could look at all the evidence and try to determine which viewpoint fits the evidence better. Does either side really want that to happen?