Adam And The Apes

[Rob Osborn]

.

No one is denying that catastrophic events haven't occurred. Last years' hurricane Sandy was catastrophic, but it wasn't a global hurricane.

 

Again you can believe anything you want. You can believe that a magical invisible unmeasurable flying spaghetti monster lives in your garage. That is fine with me as it is your belief. You can even try to convince me to believe in such. However I going to insist that for me to believe it then you have to provide sound reasons/evidence why I should believe it.

 

I don't discount it. I just find the arguments and evidences presented by science to be more convincing than your beliefs. I would appear that I agree with every recognized scientific organization on the planet.

 

A fossil can not be older than the rock it is found in. That is like saying I'm older than my mother.

 

You can't date fossils using radioactive carbon dating. The last of the dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago. Radioactive carbon dating is only effective to around 40,000 years. You are off by a factor of more than 1500 times.That is like me starting out for Provo; Utah and ending up in Vancouver; British Colombia. 

 

Organic compounds are not necessarily radioactive carbon. We use coal everyday, it is from well before the dinosaurs ever walked the earth. It too has no radioactive carbon in it. As to soft tissue from T-Rex this article very well debunks the creationists opinions on it. SEE http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna#.UtMDQLTgy_c

Look, I will be honest with you- we have gone round and round on this issue over the years and get nowhere. We always come back to the same arguments, use the same material over and over again. I will address a few things-

You certainly can date dinosaur bones with carbon dating. It gets done periodically and returns dates in the thousands of years. Of course these dates are automatically rejected because your science has a different mindset absent of facts.

BTW, that article is pretty outdated

[Freedom]

.

Look, I will be honest with you- we have gone round and round on this issue over the years and get nowhere. We always come back to the same arguments, use the same material over and over again. I will address a few things-

You certainly can date dinosaur bones with carbon dating. It gets done periodically and returns dates in the thousands of years. Of course these dates are automatically rejected because your science has a different mindset absent of facts.

BTW, that article is pretty outdated

And yet  you consistently fail to provide a single example of your so called evidence. This reality is very telling of the validity of your arguments. 

[Rob Osborn]

And yet  you consistently fail to provide a single example of your so called evidence. This reality is very telling of the validity of your arguments.

Perhaps you fail to read, I do provide links to sites and give evidence. Not to be rude but your lashing out at me on this is rude.

[Rob Osborn]

Anyone can do a google search, but here is one of thousands-

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

[Stone holm]

What was that saying about having more faith in the Rock of Ages than the age of rocks? I think with regards to Rob you are beating your head against a rock.

[Freedom]

Perhaps you fail to read, I do provide links to sites and give evidence. Not to be rude but your lashing out at me on this is rude.

You provide a link to a list of medical doctors and chemists who embrace creationism.

Then a link to a book about the grand canyon written by a Christian minister.

You then provide a link trying to prove that the origin of life is encompassed in the theory of evolution, but the link only tells us that the origin of life is of interest to the field of evolutionary biology. This is like saying carpentry is of interest to furniture sales staff.

Finlay you provide a link to a creationist sight that quotes a presentation given by a physicist on a topic that should have been presented by a biologist. Dr Thomas Seiler works as a development engineer and is not involved in actual academic research. He has no expertise in paleontology or biology. The presentation was removed from the conference list of presentations because it could not hold up to any peer review scrutiny.

I am not being rude, I am just asking to you provide some evidence but you consistently fail to provide any and you refuse to respond to probing questions. 

[Rob Osborn]

You provide a link to a list of medical doctors and chemists who embrace creationism.

Then a link to a book about the grand canyon written by a Christian minister.

You then provide a link trying to prove that the origin of life is encompassed in the theory of evolution, but the link only tells us that the origin of life is of interest to the field of evolutionary biology. This is like saying carpentry is of interest to furniture sales staff.

Finlay you provide a link to a creationist sight that quotes a presentation given by a physicist on a topic that should have been presented by a biologist. Dr Thomas Seiler works as a development engineer and is not involved in actual academic research. He has no expertise in paleontology or biology. The presentation was removed from the conference list of presentations because it could not hold up to any peer review scrutiny.

I am not being rude, I am just asking to you provide some evidence but you consistently fail to provide any and you refuse to respond to probing questions. 

I figured as much. Nothing is good enough for you guys besides your godless science

[Freedom]

I figured as much. Nothing is good enough for you guys besides your godless science

Yes, I hate it when people demand evidence. I wish i could just go to the police and tell them my neighbor is an ax murder and they would put him in prison just by relying on my word. All this demand for evidence is such a nuisance. 

 

I was shocked to find out that the lights in our church are powered by electricity and not by a miracle from God. Why has the church removed God from our buildings and allowed them to function by godless science? I am outraged. 

 

I went to a doctor with a soar throat and he suggested I had a bacterial infection and would require antibiotics. I pointed out to him that earlier in the week I uttered a cures word and that he should consider that my affliction was punishment from God. He rejected this suggestion and insisted on using godless science to cure me. I hate heretic doctors. 

[Rob Osborn]

Look, I provided evidence and you refuse to look at it to discuss it. What more is there to say? You obviously don't wish to discuss but rather just bash. See ya.

[teddyaware]

Look, I provided evidence and you refuse to look at it to discuss it. What more is there to say? You obviously don't wish to discuss but rather just bash. See ya.

Hi Rob,

 

I believe one of the reasons why many scientifically oriented LDS folks fail to keep an open mind on this subject is because they are inflexibly wedded to the theory of uniformitarianism. Though they know the scriptures teach God has the knowledge, wisdom and more than enough power to bring to bear operations upon this world that defy scientific explanation (e.g. the fall of man, the resurrection of the dead, a millennial restoration of the earth's paradisiacal glory, the transformation of this earth into a gigantic urim and thummim, the ability of the saints to meet the Saviour in mid-air at His second coming, the day the night and the day with no night, etc.)  they nonetheless, for reasons and motivations I don't fully understand, refuse to believe God may have at least partially utilized these higher laws (we call them miracles) during the creation of our earth.

 

I speculate that one of the reasons why they fail to keep open minds in all of this is because they fear the ridicule of the elite minds of the secular world, even those full-of-themselves mockers who occupy the large and spacious building. But the fact is that, like it or not, God is a God of miracles (higher laws) and believing He can use His miraculous power any time He wants to use them except during the earth's creation is incongruous to a living belief in the miracle-filled Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Edited January 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[Calm]

Actually I think most LDS who don't go into the young earth etc tend to not accept it because hey don't believe that God would intentionally make the world to appear to be constructed in a way it wasn't, ie. God is not a trickster.

[Rob Osborn]

Hi Rob,

 

I believe one of the reasons why many scientifically oriented LDS folks fail to keep an open mind on this subject is because they are inflexibly wedded to the theory of uniformitarianism. Though they know the scriptures teach God has the knowledge, wisdom and more than enough power to bring to bear operations upon this world that defy scientific explanation (e.g. the fall of man, the resurrection of the dead, a millennial restoration of the earth's paradisiacal glory, the transformation of this earth into a gigantic urim and thummim, the ability of the saints to meet the Saviour in mid-air at His second coming, the day the night and the day with no night, etc.)  they nonetheless, for reasons and motivations I don't fully understand, refuse to believe God may have at least partially utilized these higher laws (we call them miracles) during the creation of our earth.

 

I speculate that one of the reasons why they fail to keep open minds in all of this is because they fear the ridicule of the elite minds of the secular world, even those full-of-themselves mockers who occupy the large and spacious building. But the fact is that, like it or not, God is a God of miracles (higher laws) and believing He can use His miraculous power any time He wants to use them (except during the earth's creation) is incongruous to a living belief in the miracle-filled Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I find it interesting that uniformatarianism doesn't even explain their theories at all. For instance- at the Grand Canyon the geologic column is exposed and shows the distinct and relatively parallel sedimentary layers over tens of thousands of square miles. Uniformatarian theory has these layer building on top of each other slowly over the course of millions nd millions of years. Paramount problems arise when this theory is applied though because it requires a source from where all the sedimentary layer material is coming from. It basically requires this never ending mountain or higher country that keeps eroding and carrying sediment to deposit in this shallow sea that comes and goes. Its not that a shallow sea coming and going is not unbelievable, its this never ending higher country erosion event that doesn't add up. For Example- you have mountain chains like the Rocky Mountains that erode and carry sediment out to sea. These sediments slowly make their way downstream and end up into bigger rivers such as the Columbia River. As these sediments come out to the ocean they get deposited rather randomly, not uniformly, over a sea bed that is anything but level or parallel. The model demands this process carrying deposits and placing them on the sea floor. But nowhere on earth do we see these deposits being laid by this model on ocean or sea floors in a uniform manner thousands of feet thick over tens of thousands of square miles. I have brought up this dilemma over and over again and no one can or will address it- its too great a paramount problem and thus too easy to just say that they have already figured it out and then they move on. I have even asked geologists this and received no answer- No one can answer this using uniformatarian models.

[thesometimesaint]

Hi Rob,

 

I believe one of the reasons why many scientifically oriented LDS folks fail to keep an open mind on this subject is because they are inflexibly wedded to the theory of uniformitarianism. Though they know the scriptures teach God has the knowledge, wisdom and more than enough power to bring to bear operations upon this world that defy scientific explanation (e.g. the fall of man, the resurrection of the dead, a millennial restoration of the earth's paradisiacal glory, the transformation of this earth into a gigantic urim and thummim, the ability of the saints to meet the Saviour in mid-air at His second coming, the day the night and the day with no night, etc.)  they nonetheless, for reasons and motivations I don't fully understand, refuse to believe God may have at least partially utilized these higher laws (we call them miracles) during the creation of our earth.

 

I speculate that one of the reasons why they fail to keep open minds in all of this is because they fear the ridicule of the elite minds of the secular world, even those full-of-themselves mockers who occupy the large and spacious building. But the fact is that, like it or not, God is a God of miracles (higher laws) and believing He can use His miraculous power any time He wants to use them (except during the earth's creation) is incongruous to a living belief in the miracle-filled Gospel of Jesus Christ.  

 

I am an actual scientist, and no we don't all wear lab coats. I wear a suit. We really on Uniformitarianism for the simple reason that it works. That the laws and rules by which the natural world(universe) operates today are the same ones that operated yesterday. Without it nothing works. You'd be rightly pissed off if when you switched on a light bulb sometimes it worked and sometimes it wouldn't depending on how hard you prayed to God.

 

I believe in God. I believe in a God of miracles. God can do pretty much what he wants. But if you are going to claim "This" is how he did it. You'd better be prepared to defend that proposition with actual evidence. That a neutral observer(disbeliever) can use and replicate.

[Freedom]

Hi Rob,

 

I believe one of the reasons why many scientifically oriented LDS folks fail to keep an open mind on this subject is because they are inflexibly wedded to the theory of uniformitarianism. Though they know the scriptures teach God has the knowledge, wisdom and more than enough power to bring to bear operations upon this world that defy scientific explanation (e.g. the fall of man, the resurrection of the dead, a millennial restoration of the earth's paradisiacal glory, the transformation of this earth into a gigantic urim and thummim, the ability of the saints to meet the Saviour in mid-air at His second coming, the day the night and the day with no night, etc.)  they nonetheless, for reasons and motivations I don't fully understand, refuse to believe God may have at least partially utilized these higher laws (we call them miracles) during the creation of our earth.

 

I speculate that one of the reasons why they fail to keep open minds in all of this is because they fear the ridicule of the elite minds of the secular world, even those full-of-themselves mockers who occupy the large and spacious building. But the fact is that, like it or not, God is a God of miracles (higher laws) and believing He can use His miraculous power any time He wants to use them (except during the earth's creation) is incongruous to a living belief in the miracle-filled Gospel of Jesus Christ.  

 

You are completely misrepresenting our position. I am not rejecting God, I am pointing out that God follows the natural laws of physics and uses these laws to accomplish his works. You speak of 'higher laws' and just call them miracles. You cannot just make up a reason and criticize others for being closed minded if they demand some sort of evidence. How is following a 'higher law' that does not exist any different than following the laws of evolution? One is the tooth fairy, the other is based on observation. 

[thesometimesaint]

I find it interesting that uniformatarianism doesn't even explain their theories at all. For instance- at the Grand Canyon the geologic column is exposed and shows the distinct and relatively parallel sedimentary layers over tens of thousands of square miles. Uniformatarian theory has these layer building on top of each other slowly over the course of millions nd millions of years. Paramount problems arise when this theory is applied though because it requires a source from where all the sedimentary layer material is coming from. It basically requires this never ending mountain or higher country that keeps eroding and carrying sediment to deposit in this shallow sea that comes and goes. Its not that a shallow sea coming and going is not unbelievable, its this never ending higher country erosion event that doesn't add up. For Example- you have mountain chains like the Rocky Mountains that erode and carry sediment out to sea. These sediments slowly make their way downstream and end up into bigger rivers such as the Columbia River. As these sediments come out to the ocean they get deposited rather randomly, not uniformly, over a sea bed that is anything but level or parallel. The model demands this process carrying deposits and placing them on the sea floor. But nowhere on earth do we see these deposits being laid by this model on ocean or sea floors in a uniform manner thousands of feet thick over tens of thousands of square miles. I have brought up this dilemma over and over again and no one can or will address it- its too great a paramount problem and thus too easy to just say that they have already figured it out and then they move on. I have even asked geologists this and received no answer- No one can answer this using uniformatarian models.

 

SEE Continental Drift.

[Rob Osborn]

SEE Continental Drift.

This doesnt explain how the layers of the geologic column were laid.

[Freedom]

This doesnt explain how the layers of the geologic column were laid.

 

If you spent more time studying science rather than holding to your dogma, you would very quickly find the answer to this question. In fact, you would have learned this in primary school. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I find it interesting that uniformatarianism doesn't even explain their theories at all. For instance- at the Grand Canyon the geologic column is exposed and shows the distinct and relatively parallel sedimentary layers over tens of thousands of square miles. Uniformatarian theory has these layer building on top of each other slowly over the course of millions nd millions of years. Paramount problems arise when this theory is applied though because it requires a source from where all the sedimentary layer material is coming from. It basically requires this never ending mountain or higher country that keeps eroding and carrying sediment to deposit in this shallow sea that comes and goes. Its not that a shallow sea coming and going is not unbelievable, its this never ending higher country erosion event that doesn't add up. For Example- you have mountain chains like the Rocky Mountains that erode and carry sediment out to sea. These sediments slowly make their way downstream and end up into bigger rivers such as the Columbia River. As these sediments come out to the ocean they get deposited rather randomly, not uniformly, over a sea bed that is anything but level or parallel. The model demands this process carrying deposits and placing them on the sea floor. But nowhere on earth do we see these deposits being laid by this model on ocean or sea floors in a uniform manner thousands of feet thick over tens of thousands of square miles. I have brought up this dilemma over and over again and no one can or will address it- its too great a paramount problem and thus too easy to just say that they have already figured it out and then they move on. I have even asked geologists this and received no answer- No one can answer this using uniformatarian models.

I'm curious if you have ever brought this concern to actual geologists or if its something that you just pose to random people on the internet. Particularly those that study in the field. It is very easy to have questions. Tough and hard questions. The people who study geology are not dumb. They ask the same questions. They go out and dig and study and observe. And at the end of the day they publish their findings. Others scrutinize their work, propose counter theories and science moves on. There is a reason that an old earth and evolution are taught at BYU. It's because that is where the evidence will take you. If there was a way to do science and maintain a young earth view, BYU would have found a way.

Edited January 13, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[katherine the great]

So what were these ? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/326.abstract

Not Denisovans.  The skulls found in Dmanisi are skulls demonstrating continuity between earlier Homo (i.e.:  habilis, erectus, rudolfensis)

[Rob Osborn]

If you spent more time studying science rather than holding to your dogma, you would very quickly find the answer to this question. In fact, you would have learned this in primary school.

So, whats the answer then. How did the geologic layers form?

[Rob Osborn]

I'm curious if you have ever brought this concern to actual geologists or if its something that you just pose to random people on the internet. Particularly those that study in the field. It is very easy to have questions. Tough and hard questions. The people who study geology are not dumb. They ask the same questions. They go out and dig and study and observe. And at the end of the day they publish their findings. Others scrutinize their work, propose counter theories and science moves on. There is a reason that an old earth and evolution are taught at BYU. It's because that is where the evidence will take you. If there was a way to do science and maintain a young earth view, BYU would have found a way.

I have actually proposed these questions to geologists trained in their field of study. I have yet to receive any answer that actually addresses the issue.

[thesometimesaint]

This doesnt explain how the layers of the geologic column were laid.

 

Actually it does quite satisfactorily. Wind and water help erode and deposit dirt over time. Continent drift raises those deposits to where we can see them.

 

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_original_horizontality

Edited January 13, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[cdowis]

 We really on Uniformitarianism for the simple reason that it works. That the laws and rules by which the natural world(universe) operates today are the same ones that operated yesterday. Without it nothing works. You'd be rightly pissed off if when you switched on a light bulb sometimes it worked and sometimes it wouldn't depending on how hard you prayed to God.

 

 

What if there were a "higher law" that I do not understand, such as the flow of electricity through a wire.  As you pray harder, you are shaking a desk which is moving that wire which has a loose connector.

 

I wouldn't be "pissed off", but curious why the light bulb is sometimes not working.  I would investigate, rather than look at consensus opinion and ignoring something that contradicts that opinion.

 

 Who knows but I may actually learn something on how that light bulb works.

 

If you study the history of science, you will discover that the "consensus opinion" has sometimes hindered the progress of science.  One recent example is the excavation of native american sites, where the bering strait theory reigned supreme, and archeologists refused to dig into deeper strata because "nothing will be there."

[cdowis]

If you spent more time studying science rather than holding to your dogma, you would very quickly find the answer to this question. In fact, you would have learned this in primary school. 

 

Somehow you have the misconception that "science" is not influenced by dogma.  I say "science" because science is managed by human beings, mortals, with the same flaws as anybody else.  They are influenced by greed, fear, power, pride. 

 

You cut across the dogma and you pay a price, both personally and professionally.

 

You should have learned that in high school.

[thesometimesaint]

What if there were a "higher law" that I do not understand, such as the flow of electricity through a wire.  As you pray harder, you are shaking a desk which is moving that wire which has a loose connector.

 

I wouldn't be "pissed off", but curious why the light bulb is sometimes not working.  I would investigate, rather than look at consensus opinion and ignoring something that contradicts that opinion.

 

 Who knows but I may actually learn something on how that light bulb works.

 

If you study the history of science, you will discover that the "consensus opinion" has sometimes hindered the progress of science.  One recent example is the excavation of native american sites, where the bering strait theory reigned supreme, and archeologists refused to dig into deeper strata because "nothing will be there."

 

I don't believe we need a complete perfect understanding of how something works in order for it to work and be useful to us. Otherwise we'd still sitting in caves afraid of things go bump in the dark.

 

I'd be pretty pissed off if it were random. Especially if I had no apparent reason for why it was random after investigation.

 

I've got a pretty good understanding, limited as it is, of how light bulbs work. It is when application of that understanding doesn't produce light I get into trouble.