Great presentation....and imagine that the State of Kentucky actually gave that charlatan - Ken Hamm - a tax break for that "museum". Disgraceful.....
@InternetDarkLord My son argued with his first grade teacher who insisted that Noahs flood was literal . My son pointed out how the ark could'nt transport 20 thousand termite species . I was proud of him .
Seashell fossils found on the mainland in no way support, let alone confirm great flood myth. There is a good reason why fossil layers like these are distributed in, well, layers. It is called stratification. There is an entire field of science dedicated to explaining the natural processes by which the strata forms. It is called stratigraphy. Please look it up, read about it; at least entertain the possibility that science may have some merit.
He doesn't know the exact sequence the flood took across the whole earth. I'm certain there was violence, especially since the earths crust collapsed as well as the lens of water from above. But anything that was buried by mud was insulated from the torrent of violence.
@lederereddy Except for the fact that most of the sediments found in the Earth's crust require long settling times. These being the fine clays that became the shales. But in any event, the presence of evaporites clearly shows that there was no global flood. Come down to the simple chemistry of the rocks, the physics involved, and some math.
How do creationists handle the different types of marble : Totally fluid in origin, fluid mixed with hard chunks and the ones with shell fossils in them? Than there is the many colors of marble. I can't see how they can get around established theory on that.
@isleofyew1 Explain why its a problem briefly( I think I know what your implying). Most creationists wouldnt think of it as a conflict at all (the very few who even where aware of it). They would probably just say things got jumbled by terrible earth quakes and flowing magma?
@flyingscience The creationist's great flood that, they claim, made the Grand Canyon and the young earth hypothesis do not explain the 3 main groups of marble that clearly where made under such great pressure that some went completely fluid or half fluid. The ones containing fossilized shells are younger. No way a young earth can account for that. I just looked up "marble" on wikipedia an was astonished how little information there is on it's history and the many kinds. No magma is involved.
@flyingscience Sorry "were" made. Never had English at school. But learned the basics of marble imitation painting. It was that teacher, 30 years ago who explained that the marble without veins was made in one go under extreme pressure. With veins is when it coagulated and then went partly fluid again allowing material to flow in between. The marbles with early shells fossils are obviously much younger. Hope I did not make to many mistakes this time.
creationists won't question anything they are told by another creationist- refusal to see anything that contradicts the bible is how the creationist belief survives
The bible also endorses human sacrifice. Judges 11:29-40. Vestigial tails and tails in human embrionic development should be enough to settle the matter.
@gregrutz "Nice try, but fossils are invisible to creationists, they can't see them." Greg, nonsensical statements like this do not set the position you advocate in a very favorable light. There are many creationists whose work is to do the very thing you claim they do not do. Your lack of knowledge about their work is no reflection on it.
You're right flying science! But I have the bad habit of not replying directly. I am curious to know if mr. Marvinson or fish still check this vid. Thank you for posting flying science. And I apologize to mr. Marvinson for not getting his name right in the other post. You will get this right away flying science! lol Keep posting.
If you think evolution is untrue then you cant find your tailbone with both hands. Marvin please tell what the 'big problems' with evolution are? Fish has asked and now I am asking.
@blueasblueis flyingscience is correct. I don't peruse YouTube for people's questions. I watched the original video, posted a comment, and respond to those who have responded to my original comment as notified by YouTube via e-mail.
Nonetheless, I will list the big problems for you: Life does not spontaneously come from non-life; even experiments to "force" it to happen show this to be so. Viable digital code isn't written by chance. Geological evidence does not support a single "tree of life."
the problem is creationists interpretation of the bible and their acertion that the days mentioned in the bible are 24 hours long, the bible says we are living in Gods rest day and have been for the last 6000 years or so, we are in the 7th day and so the other 6 could be 1000s of years each, there is no way to say how long each day would be. let the bible interpret itself and dont force it to your interpretations
Ken Ham doesn't dig things up because creationists HATE to do research as it has this nasty habbit of proving creationism is bull$hit and then they'd need to make up new excuses to ignore the evidence.
The question comes to mind why someone would see fossil sea shells on every level of the geological column--which means they were buried together with land animals and plants--and get excited that he has found evidence of evolution?
@MorganMarvinson Evolution is evident in the geologic column because the fauna changed over time , minute changes of even the genera changes are found. Evolution is factual evidenced from sea shells alone . The world is more than 70 percent water there will be marine fossils along all coastal areas - not from a universal flood .
@MorganMarvinson During the paleozoic sea level was 600 feet higher (the ice caps had melted ) . Not the flood though becuase their are no trees , plants or vertabrate land animlas.Creationists often exclaim flood when ever their is mention of seashells on land .Leonardo DaVinci was the first to disprove Mountain seashell fossils where left by a flood .
@MorganMarvinson The video descriptions are now below each video , there is a button with double down arrows click that to scroll down link list .The 8th one down explains how we know a universal flood never occured (the aftermath would be a laundry list of 30 features thats unavoidabe if a flood had realy been historical ) .
@flyingscience I'll have to consider that list some day, in the meantime, everything about the burial of the fossils, from the non-erosion between layers of the strata, to the index fossils which are sea life, to the positions of burial, to the directional nature of the burial of plant life, to the protrusion of vertical trees through supposedly millions of years of deposition, to the beds of coal that could not be from peak, all SCREAM OUT that there was indeed a worldwide flood.
@MorganMarvinson Creationist websites and books have filled your mind with missinformation . A SMALL amount of studying comparing and contrasting will make it obvious . Please google polystrate fossils or look at the link to them in my description .
@Morgan Marvinson Polystrate fossils of trees through multiple layers are the results of flooded trees in flood plains (think of Louisiana flooded twice , NOT Noahs flood ). Polystrate fossils where explained over a century ago ,it is convincing only to those unfamiliar with geology and the subject .
@MorganMarvinson Dinos are typicly found on land only , It is possible some have been found near a sea shore can you referance the claim in mainstream literature ? Or name the dino site that had seashells in the mix? Thats a new one on me .
@flyingscience You must have misunderstood my point. I am not saying that they are only find by seashores. My point is that they are buried with seashells, pointing their being buried by sea water.
Dr. Hotton at the Smithsonian helped compile a chart that all dinosaur fossils were preserved in sedimentary formations. Some is fresh, some is salt, some is brackish. Salt water is not limited to coastal regions.
@Morgan Marvinson There are too many drought layers in the geologic column to be the result of a flood . Drought layers have cracked baked earth in the ground like dried tiles . The flood is story is myth and has no evidence to collaborate it other than misinterpreted wishful thinking .
@flyingscience Those layers you are talking about are better accounted for by changes in the currents that laid down the sediments. This conclusion is based on laboratory studies. If you are of an open mind, watch "Drama in the Rocks" for details. If you are closeminded, then don't.
@MorganMarvinson I've seen Drama in the rocks , I know about ICR .Both are lacking credentials and scientific peer review and adherence to the scientific method .Creationism has a ruined reputation worldwide any cursory examination will show its body of work as pseudoscience for a religious/ political agenda.
@flyingscience One only needs to consider the evidence presented. I don't need a phD to tell me that an apple is edible. There are scientists and laymen in every field who pull down the field. Just listen to some of the commenters on both sides here on YouTube. The problem with those who are credentialed are competing assumptions which seem totally ridiculous to the opposing sides. Naturalism seems irrational to theists and God seems irrational to atheists.
@MorganMarvinson : "Naturalism seems irrational to theists and God seems irrational to atheists" Naturalism is Gods method of running the universe with evolution of species : say more than 1 billion Christians .Fundamentalism is a Christian minority
@MorganMarvinson Voted on by pagan Romans .There where dogma wars , Monotheist Christians where hunted down tortured and killed by Trinitarian Christians .Large rock slabs would be used to pin a mans arm to the ground .The man would starve to death or If he was lucky he'd be rescued but forever cripled .
@MorganMarvinson You are aware enough alternate gospels existed to make dozens of alternate bibles . The present bible was made to beat another competing bible .Watch a few "who wrote the bible videos "
@MorganMarvinson -Naturalism is Gods method of running the universe with evolution of species : say more than 1 billion Christians .Fundamentalism is a Christian minority
@Morgan Marvinson Creationism is thoroughly discredited and is illegal to teach in any public school system . ID has been discredited as well . Cult psychology of fundamentalism and child indoctrination / authoritarianism ensure its continued survival as a meme passed on generationaly .
That is precisely what the evolutionary establishment is doing with evolution in public schools by not allowing the theory to be questioned. They seem very worried about the privileged status of their monopoly in being able to indoctrinate children regarding naturalism.
@Morgan Marvinson Creationism cant pop its ugly head up in science classes because its not science . Ancient astronauts nuts dont get equal time , nor does big foot , or astrology or alchemy . Naturalism is the only game in town until a supernatural step is discovered.
@MorganMarvinson :-- by not allowing the theory to be questioned.-- You are full of buls... Science welcomes any attempt to prove it wrong. That`s the strong point of science. There is only ONE book that claims infallibility: The bible.
@lizazoon And it's other translation thru another semetic culture - the Koran. It's so sad really. The middle east used to be such a bastion for learning and free exchange of ideas. Until the fundamentalists of every stripe showed their faces. Wisdom, compassion, intellectual curiosity, all curtailed by dogma. A crime against humanity, really.
@lizazoon Yes, by not allowing the theory of evolution to be questioned, it shows the extreme vulnerability of the evolutionary establishment. Science welcomes no challenge and punishes those who question the theory's adequacy.
The Bible does not claim infallibility. It is true that Christian groups claim infallibility of it, but the Bible claims that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" and it designates its purpose (2Tim 3:16, 17).
@MorganMarvinson-- Science welcomes no challenge and punishes those who question the theory's adequacy.-- There is only one answer fitting; YOU ARE NUTS.!!!
@MorganMarvinson Nope. just you talking. From the careful examination of just one evaporite deposit in Texas we can clearly show that the Noachian Flood never happened. Further examination of other sites for their chemical composition as well will confirm this. Shall I elaborate?
@NorthForkFisherman Go ahead and elaborate, but when you make a sweeping statement based on a single piece of evidence, fair-minded people will know that your opinion is prejudiced before even looking at any evidence to the contrary.
The cards are stacked against any fair hearing in public schools as well.
@MorganMarvinson Oh MM, this one piece is just the start point. It's part of a whole that when a truely open mind looks at it and sees the depth and breadth of it must concede that a Noachian flood never happened, and therefore Genesis should not be taken literally. Please note that I'm saying nothing about deity, simply about a literal book of Genesis. And so , since you have asked for elaboration on one point, I'll begin. The Permian Opeche Share (continued)
@NorthForkFisherman I would turn this around, brother fisherman, that the truly open mind would consider the evidence for catastrophic flooding. Are you truly open to the evidence--or are you simply trying to present your point of view?
@MorganMarvinson I can see the evidence every day at the road cuts I pass on the way to work. I've taken the time to read the geology of this land and ponder what it means. And from one formation alone and it's implications I can say that a literal flood as desrcibed by Genesis never happened. So, can you handle what this data is?
@NorthForkFisherman Bro, it isn't a matter of data. Smarter people than you and I look at the same data, you can describe, and see evidences of a worldwide flood. Your difficulty is not the data--it's the lenses you use to interpret the data. As long as you keep putting on that particular set of lenses, you will overlook the evidences of massive catastrophe.
@MorganMarvinson Like I've already shown you with the data from the Opeche Shale, it's not lenses, it's just the raw facts.So how can you account for the amount of heat that would need to be released to create just this one deposit? Then factor in all the other evaporite and anhydrite deposits found around the world. You cannot refute the plain facts of chemistry.
@NorthForkFisherman I don't need to refute chemistry. Your hypothetical problems have been answered. I am not a geologist, so I am not qualified to answer your questions. The evidence of catastrophic causes for the grand scheme of geology is abundant. If you are in earnest about finding answers, rather than just sitting on your side of the divide and throwing clayballs, you can find them.
@MorganMarvinson '' not a geologist, so I am not qualified to answer your questions. The evidence of catastrophic causes for the grand scheme of geology is abundant''
HOW DO YOU KNOW? YOU JUST SAID YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT GEOLOGY BUT YOU KNOW IT IS CATASTOPHIC.
Do you think ''uniformitarianism' means 'slow and grandual?
@gregrutz Take your potty language elsewhere, Greg. I'm not a geologist, but I did take geology in college.
Uniformitarianism DID mean slow and gradual for many years. In the last several decades geologists have acknowledged catastrophism in the record. Bully for them!
@MorganMarvinson Maybe you took it, but you obviously didn't pass it. And thank you for conceding. Neither am I a geologist, but I can and do READ and THINK. I take great pleasure in expanding my horizons rather them letting them be draw for me by those people who think a tome on the cultural history of a bunch of Semetic herders is an actual science text. I devour information on a wide range of subjects, and most importantly, I've never stopped asking questions.
@NorthForkFisherman Actually, I got an A in the class. But that doesn't make me a geologist or qualify me to deal with the matters you brought up. Obviously you are more well read on the issues you raised.
@MorganMarvinson Oh, excellent! Then why have you stopped asking questions? Why do you not continue to seek information simply for the sake of learning something new? The first thing I learned about any of this is how much real science draws on so many other disciplines to answer a question while dogma goes out of its way to to hide facts or ignore them. Nothing exists in a vacuum and everything is related to everything else.
Time constraints and interest. I'm starting a doctorate in HISTORY and editing/co-writing book on a specific period of the same. Pursuing issues of evolutionary thinking get third place--yet I have still taken time to read books on the issues and have come to this conclusion:
Evolutionary science is afraid of the really big questions--which I have repeated here on YouTube.
@MorganMarvinson Time in. This is not the only line of inquiry I'm involved in. I've a wide range of interests, and basic geology is just one. Either you'll tell me what you consider the "big questions being avoided" are or you won't. But in any event, to comment on something you don't fully familarize yourself with does sound somewhat hypocritical. The data is all out there, if you choose to avail yourself of it. Ignorance, in the 21st century, is a choice.
@NorthForkFisherman "Ignorance in the 21st century is a choice" Actually, "informed" people line up on both sides of the question. Have you familiarized yourself with the other side of the question? Probably not. You are "informed" in one direction--though, to your credit, informed.
If you will trace the course of my comments on this video, you will find that I never pretended to have a major expertise in geology. What I know, I know. What I don't, I don't. YouTube isn't a professional forum.
@MorganMarvinson Absolutley I have. Indeed it's because of my exposure to YEC teachings growing up that I started asking these questions. Questions that made my parents very uncomfortable. "Who was Mrs Cain?", and what not. Once I started high school biology and chemistry I started to see what I had been told was just pure BS. Told and repeated by folks had enough of an answer for them. But it just wasn't based on facts. Is there deity? I don't know, but a literal interpretaion of Genesis fails.
@MorganMarvinson Losing faith is not necessarily a bad thing. I've replaced it with knowledge. And from that, everyone around me is able to profit. I've not graduated yet, but my hope is to go into research and work on Cystic Fibrosis treatments. Be glad to get back into a hospital. Been out that field too long. But biology, and the sciences in general corrects it's errors and learns from them, unlike organized religion.
@NorthForkFisherman "biology, and the sciences in general corrects it's errors and learns from them, unlike organized religion." I would agree with your statement minus the comma. For organized religion to correct its mistakes, it has generally required an insider to speak from the outside pointing out its flaws, i.e. the Reformation. Corrections, in this way, have been made. Evolutionary science, on the other hand, has been unwilling to consider the reformation that is required of it.
@MorganMarvinson Excommunication is a religious censure used to deprive or suspend membership in a religious community. The word means putting [someone] out of communion. In some religions, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group.
In other words, the Pope says you are going to hell.
@gregrutz Thanks for the definition. The Pope who made this pronouncement is already in "hell" (the grave, Acts 2:31), so I'm not too worried about his pronouncement. My concern is what God thinks of me, and the best way for me to judge that is not by a human pronouncement but by what He has revealed in His Word.
@gregrutz I'll take the encouragement to read the Bible just fine. It's worth reading over and over again. But about the part about videos that prove me wrong ... first of all you would have no idea WHAT I believe unless I wrote about it and secondly, the flaw is in the video and that is why I took the time to respond.
Have you gotten the point that the engine is what powers a car? A driver only constrains its movement. A care with a driver without an engine has nothing to drive it.
@gregrutz "A car does not move without an engine and tires and gas." I take that as a concession to my point about what powers the vehicle is NOT the driver (In Spanish they speak of "driving" a car as "conducting" a car--a better term.)
The fact is: the world exists with living organisms. That it occurred by means of random copy errors, laws of nature (where'd they come from? why some firm?), chance, and natural selection ("what doesn't kill you makes you better") is far from being a fact.
@gregrutz Again, let me commend you for such strong adherence to your belief system--even in the face of the fundamental contradiction of its assumptions, you still believe. I didn't enter this arena to complain about your belief; I entered to point out its fundamental flaws--without intelligence, chance forces such as random mutation and genetic drift, even as constrained by "natural selection" are insufficient to account for the complexity and genius of DNA, your strong belief notwithstanding.
@MorganMarvinson So once again, what do you consider the big questions? I've had chance to read back over some eariler posts of yours and you do have a fair grasp on natural selection. It's just really hard to carry on a real conversation in 500 chars or less. So much context gets lost. Sigh.
@NorthForkFisherman If you have read my working use of natural selection and consider it "fair," then you will undoubtedly see the basic problem of abiogenesis and evolution driven by random mutation, constrained by natural selection. It is fundamentally inadequate to explain the development of the species and both insiders and outsiders acknowledge it.
The geological record is not a record of origin but of mass burials. The origin of life or of most of the species isn't found there.
@MorganMarvinson But when considering abiogenesis, none of it is random. It's the nature of carbon compounds to assume certain configurations when exposed to given conditions. This is simply chemistry. Simple RNA enzymes have been created in the labratory by duplicating conditions found on the early earth. This data is further supported by a careful analysis on the minerals found from said times and the conditions under which they form.
@gregrutz Science is merely studying God's laws in the natural world long after He ordained them. It helps us know a God of power, order, wisdom, and grace. None of these contracts the picture of Him presented in the BIBLE.
@MorganMarvinson Except the bible is wrong about the earth being flat, the center of the universe, and the flood story. But it must be right about Jesus.
@gregrutz PUOSU, please. You asserted that the Bible was wrong on these matters, but only reassert your assumption as proof. The Bible does not teach that the earth is flat, so it cannot be wrong in what it teaches on that point. The Bible does not teach that the earth is the center of the universe, so it cannot be wrong on that point either. The Bible speaks of "the circle of the earth" (Isa 40:22) and teaches that earth is only God's "footstool" (Isa 66:1)--hardly the center of the universe.
@MorganMarvinson There is no evidence for a flood, it is a bible story.
Tree rings prove there was no flood.
Chinese history proves there was no flood.
Geology, No pre-flood, mud, post flood layers.
Ice cores prove there was no flood.
Fossils prove there was no flood.
etc. etc. etc.
I am sure you have an excuse for all of science being wrong, and some crap like 'trees only live 4400 years'' or 'floods make layers and sort fossils''
@gregrutz "There is no evidence for a flood." So apparently you know nothing about the many evidences for the global flood or you have chosen to ignore it. Had you answered with "Well, there is one thing I would consider evidence ....," I would know that you are honest about your inquiry. Since you give a blanket denial, I must conclude that you aren't really interested in being honest with the evidence but simply want to rant.
Tell me something that can help me change my appraisal.
@gregrutz "I can't help it if the Bible story has no evidence." Man, that is so lame. If you don't know any evidence for the flood, then I suggest you go do some reading first before we discuss this. Then we can discuss it knowledgeably.
@MorganMarvinson What do you want me to study? Canopy theory? Hydrological sorting theory? Hydroplate theory? How can I study the evidence for something that didn't happen. Next you will want me to prove God does not exist. Creationists always get things backwards. If you claim there was a flood, it is up to you to prove it. Watch the video to see why you are wrong. I have studied Geology, why don't you? Then we can discuss it knowledgeably.
@gregrutz Start by asking yourself the question: What evidence of a flood--besides its being described in the Bible--is so compelling to so many people? Then look at my note to NorthForkFisherman about "SCREAM OUT that there was indeed a worldwide flood" as well as about "Did somebody say FLOOD?" and then tell me the only thing I've talked about is the inadequacy of random copy errors constrained by Natural Selection to account for diversity of life on the planet.
@gregrutz 1. I listed a number of evidences. Perhaps I need to go into greater detail so you are able to recognize what I am describing. The Bible is NOT the only reason people believe in a flood. That is my point.
2. NS is itself the constraining force on the true engine of change--chance mutation. The engine of change is copy errors, the constrainer of errors is NS.
@gregrutz This is what I have been saying throughout the course of our dialog. I guess you may be finally hearing me.
The point I make is that the "variation" provided strictly by "mutations" (and genetic shift or any other random action) is sufficient to provide for certain variations in body type, but not sufficient to account for the development of the past and current body types themselves.
This is the point of the extended synthesis (evolutionists) and it is the point of ID (theists).
@gregrutz "Why not?" Theoretically, given limitless time, it is conceivable that a robotized factory could produce a different line of working products, designed to make changes by an occasional error in manufacture that is merely approved or disapproved by Quality Control, IF the factory had limitless time--theoretically, mind you. (I think most thinking people would question whether such a factory could actually get the job done--even with billions of years to make the changes.)
@gregrutz "... that won't change the fossil record or DNA code that shows it did happen." The fossil record is the very basis of my arguing that it couldn't have happened. What Darwin hypothesized has NOT been borne out in thousands of gradations of organisms over time. Rather, there is fixicity of species for evolutionary billions of years with radical change supposedly occurring in very narrow bands of time. You can't blithely claim that the fossil record supports evolution when it doesn't.
@gregrutz "Why not?" The problem for Random Mutation (the factory that makes changes by chance mistakes) and Natural selection (quality control) is that the fossil record reveals that organisms did NOT have unlimited time to evolve. Rather, Gould points out that organisms stayed basically the same for eons and supposedly made their radical changes in form in SHORT bands of time. RM & NS can't produce these radical changes. This is why the Extended Synthesis is looking for new forces.
@gregrutz You can't claim 4 billion years when the punctuated equilibrium points to much smaller increments of time for radical change. Check again. The stasis of organisms is throughout the animal kingdom, not just sharks.
The theory falls on its face. Will you be honest enough to own up to the evidence?
@MorganMarvinson I guess we need a new theory to explain how evolution happened. How do you think it happened? Why did only the feathered dinosaurs survive the last of 6 major mass extinctions that happened on the earth?
@gregrutz "I guess we need a new theory to explain how evolution happened." Or perhaps to question whether the evidence actually points at all to the kind of evolution that is claimed as having happened.
No dinosaurs with feathers survived. You've tried to claim before that there were several feathered dinosaurs (& I called you on this). None of these survived and, even if it could be proved that they had feathers, they POST-date the first avians. They were not the progenitors of birds.
@gregrutz "The evidence shows evolution ..." I beg to differ--the evidence shows animals buried in water-born sediment--evidence of a flood. It is only the assumption of evolution that turns the fossil record into evidence for evolution.
I see birds in my yard too. They are birds. You seem to be unaware of the major problems with the therapod-to-birds hypothesis and the paucity of evidence for the feathers on the dinosaurs.
I am a human/primate/mammal/tetrapod/vertebrate, thank you.
@MorganMarvinson Not all fossils are in 'water-born sediment'' Not all sediment is from water. All rocks did not come from mud. There was no global flood.
Read a geology book so you don't look so silly.
How do you explain dinosaurs ruling the earth for 160,000,000 years.
How do you explain dinosaurs with feathers, just deny them?
Watch the video you are spamming and learn something.
@gregrutz "Not all fossils are in 'water-born sediment' ..." Until the cenozoic--unless in a lava flow.
"no global flood" Then how do you explain the fact that SEASHELLS are the index fossils at every level of the fossil record--SEASHELLS ... AT EVERY LEVEL!
I don't need to explain dinosaurs with feathers. The jury isn't in on whether any dinosaurs actually had feathers. The dromaeosaurs postdate Archaeopteryx by 20 million evolutionary years (i.e. they were buried later).
@gregrutz "Why not?" Fundamentally, your response is about why RM & NS is insufficient to account for the various body types themselves.
Imagine an automated factory that produces bobble-headed trolls. Its only means of innovation is random production errors that are culled if the product doesn't work. Given 5 million years, will it give the bobble head any new functionality? Will it, for example, produce a troll puppet?
@gregrutz Unless you are going to invest reproduction with its own brand of intelligence or infer that Natural Selection has a com link with the DNA to whisper suggestions on how to improve the next generation of organisms then life is nothing more than a living factory when it comes to reproduction and innovation.
You (and other evolutionists) have divested the process of intelligence. You have made it a factory that operates on random copy errors and the Quality Control of all that dies.
Wikileaked: The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented. However, the question of abiogenesis ... remains relevant today.
Spontaneous generation refers to ... the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge ... The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter.
@gregrutz The analogy is apt. No, you haven't been talking about how the factory could have come into existence. You have only been talking about evolution itself. The spontaneous generation of abiogenesis is a MUCH bigger problem than getting an automated factory that produces bobble-headed trolls to make troll puppets by random errors. There is no tangible evidence that non-life ever spawned life. Science has gone on record as repudiating spontaneous generation. Only life begets life.
Here is the evidence, the facts, go look. The fossils are layered like this: In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils. No human or bunny fossils are found in any of these layers. No dating method used
@gregrutz You forget that, at every level there are shells, shells, and more shells. The burial of these organisms does not represent normal burial conditions. To get a land animal to be buried with seashells--layer on top of layer on top of layer--requires massive flood waters.
The order you propose tells us what order the flooding and deposition overtook its prey. It does NOT show links between these various organisms.
@gregrutz For the evidences I listed, you will need to read my post containing the words "SCREAM OUT that there was indeed a worldwide flood" to NorthForkFisherman.
@MorganMarvinson A fully free lving cell is, of course, not currently possible. We haven't figured out if the basic metabolic processes were first or if a RNA enzyme was first. And you must remember, there is no reason to think that cells as they are today are exactly as they were when they first formed. Processes have had nearly 4 billion years to optimize and make the best use of the resources at hand while competing with other protocells.
@MorganMarvinson And with that I must adjourn. I've got to wrap up the chapter I'm working on and get some rest. Geology @ night during work. Molecular biology for classes, during the day. I'm getting too old for this crap.
@gregrutz "evolution driven by random mutation, constrained by natural selection." You know something about a car works, right?
What is the power under the hood--the engine or the driver? The name "driver" is misleading. What drives/empowers the movement of the car is not the man or woman behind the wheel. It is the engine. A car could still move without a driver because he or she is not the driving force in its movement. The driver constrains the movement--or lack of movement--of the vehicle.
@gregrutz And I'm OK with that. I do get irritated sometimes by dealing with these folks, but it's mostly an exercise to develop my own mind and expand my horizons. And if I can provide a data-based counterpoint to those who wouldn't know a real fact if it bit them on the ass, so much the better.
@MorganMarvinson The Opeche shale, dates to the Permian. The interesting thing about the Opeche is that in the center of the basin, at its deepest part, it is salt; 300 feet of salt. Permian pollen is found in the salt, modern pollen is not found (Wilgus and Holser, 1984, p. 765, 766). This bed has the appearance of a period of time in which the Williston Sea dried up, leaving its salt behind in the deepest parts of the basin, as would be expected (continued)
@MorganMarvinson The area of salt deposition is 188,400 square kilometers. Assuming that over this area the average thickness of salt is half that 300 feet (91 m) in the deepest part, or 45 meters, then this deposit represents 9 trillion cubic meters of salt! With a density of 2,160 kg/m^3 this represents the evaporation of 540,000 cubic kilometers of seawater. It takes 10^24 joules to evaporate this much water. (continued)
@MorganMarvinson That is two times more heat than would be necessary to raise the temperature of the entire atmosphere by more than 100 degrees Celsius. Noah, et al would have been cooked like lobsters in a pot. And then consider, there is more than 3100 feet of evaporative salt under Detroit in a formation that streches from Canada to the Appalachians. How much more energy would that be realeased into the air from that?
@MorganMarvinson And remember, this is just one line of data followed out to it's logical concusion. The number of meteor strikes found, the amount of carbonates and their heat of formation, the biomass issue for both animal, plant, and microbial sources, and palyonological issues simply show no Noahican Flood, and a very long time of deposition. Were I not limited to 500 char at a time, I'd be more than glad to elaborate.
Index fossil are animals that only lived for a short period of time and then changed. Their time slot is so well documented that geologist don't need to date every rock, they work backwards because they know when an animal lived.
A dinosaur fossil proves the rock it came from is 65 to 235 million years old. Understand?
@YASHUAHasRISE A young earth creationist museum built upon millions of years of reefs confirms an old earth and evolution . Thats like building a museum dedicated to Moon landing denial on top of NASA launch pads . If you where science literate you'd get the irony .
@YASHUAHasRISEN Its not "my " theory , its not a theory at all . The creation museum is built upon ancient sea bed / sea floor deposits of limestone and shale . The intact reef presence rules out Noahs flood as an explanation .
@YASHUAHasRISEN "cannot fully explain and understand the infinite with our finite minds" But the earth is quite finite and the processes and materials that make it up are quite understandable to those who have open minds and eyes. The facts are clear. No flood. And "Holy Texts" aren't science books. They're guides for living with each other, nothing more. And even in that respect they don't do too well.
You have to see this, I found Jesus's petrified penis in my backyard! That proves evolution is wrong.
Typhoonbladefist 3 months ago
Great presentation....and imagine that the State of Kentucky actually gave that charlatan - Ken Hamm - a tax break for that "museum". Disgraceful.....
edgwaterprog 5 months ago 3
"Empire of the Dinosaurs: says 500,000 species of dinosaurs existed. That ark was one hell of a crowded boat!
InternetDarkLord 7 months ago
@InternetDarkLord My son argued with his first grade teacher who insisted that Noahs flood was literal . My son pointed out how the ark could'nt transport 20 thousand termite species . I was proud of him .
flyingscience 7 months ago 2
@flyingscience I hope those termites don't eat gopherwood!
InternetDarkLord 7 months ago
Seashell fossils found on the mainland in no way support, let alone confirm great flood myth. There is a good reason why fossil layers like these are distributed in, well, layers. It is called stratification. There is an entire field of science dedicated to explaining the natural processes by which the strata forms. It is called stratigraphy. Please look it up, read about it; at least entertain the possibility that science may have some merit.
SiloKybe 8 months ago
Noahs flood is a fairytale.
Cainkane1 10 months ago
He doesn't know the exact sequence the flood took across the whole earth. I'm certain there was violence, especially since the earths crust collapsed as well as the lens of water from above. But anything that was buried by mud was insulated from the torrent of violence.
lederereddy 10 months ago
@lederereddy Except for the fact that most of the sediments found in the Earth's crust require long settling times. These being the fine clays that became the shales. But in any event, the presence of evaporites clearly shows that there was no global flood. Come down to the simple chemistry of the rocks, the physics involved, and some math.
NorthForkFisherman 10 months ago
How do creationists handle the different types of marble : Totally fluid in origin, fluid mixed with hard chunks and the ones with shell fossils in them? Than there is the many colors of marble. I can't see how they can get around established theory on that.
isleofyew1 1 year ago
@isleofyew1 Explain why its a problem briefly( I think I know what your implying). Most creationists wouldnt think of it as a conflict at all (the very few who even where aware of it). They would probably just say things got jumbled by terrible earth quakes and flowing magma?
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience The creationist's great flood that, they claim, made the Grand Canyon and the young earth hypothesis do not explain the 3 main groups of marble that clearly where made under such great pressure that some went completely fluid or half fluid. The ones containing fossilized shells are younger. No way a young earth can account for that. I just looked up "marble" on wikipedia an was astonished how little information there is on it's history and the many kinds. No magma is involved.
isleofyew1 1 year ago
@flyingscience Sorry "were" made. Never had English at school. But learned the basics of marble imitation painting. It was that teacher, 30 years ago who explained that the marble without veins was made in one go under extreme pressure. With veins is when it coagulated and then went partly fluid again allowing material to flow in between. The marbles with early shells fossils are obviously much younger. Hope I did not make to many mistakes this time.
isleofyew1 1 year ago
@flyingscience Do not laugh, I did not think there is no plural for marble in English. I did not loose my marbles.
isleofyew1 1 year ago
Ham should bulldoze the whole museum. OOps, they wasnt a flood after all. But bulldozing the museum sounds like a great idea anyways.
MrJohnnyrace 1 year ago
creationists won't question anything they are told by another creationist- refusal to see anything that contradicts the bible is how the creationist belief survives
mompm 1 year ago
I love how the 350,000 (known) species of beetles survived that world wide flood!! Flood biology!
blueasblueis 1 year ago
@blueasblueis And all the saltwater fish survived the muddy, fresh water!
gregrutz 1 year ago
The bible also endorses human sacrifice. Judges 11:29-40. Vestigial tails and tails in human embrionic development should be enough to settle the matter.
blueasblueis 1 year ago
''Even creationist can put 1 and 1 together'' NO THEY CAN"T !
gregrutz 1 year ago
Nice try, but fossils are invisible to creationists, they can't see them.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "Nice try, but fossils are invisible to creationists, they can't see them." Greg, nonsensical statements like this do not set the position you advocate in a very favorable light. There are many creationists whose work is to do the very thing you claim they do not do. Your lack of knowledge about their work is no reflection on it.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
You're right flying science! But I have the bad habit of not replying directly. I am curious to know if mr. Marvinson or fish still check this vid. Thank you for posting flying science. And I apologize to mr. Marvinson for not getting his name right in the other post. You will get this right away flying science! lol Keep posting.
blueasblueis 1 year ago
If you think evolution is untrue then you cant find your tailbone with both hands. Marvin please tell what the 'big problems' with evolution are? Fish has asked and now I am asking.
blueasblueis 1 year ago
@blueasblueis You need to reply to him directly (hit the reply button in his comments) .That is the only way he'll know you wrote him.
flyingscience 1 year ago
@blueasblueis flyingscience is correct. I don't peruse YouTube for people's questions. I watched the original video, posted a comment, and respond to those who have responded to my original comment as notified by YouTube via e-mail.
Nonetheless, I will list the big problems for you: Life does not spontaneously come from non-life; even experiments to "force" it to happen show this to be so. Viable digital code isn't written by chance. Geological evidence does not support a single "tree of life."
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ''Geological evidence does not support a single "tree of life."
Geological evidence does not support a 'global flood''
The fossil record does show evidence for the gradual change of life over time.
DNA evidence shows a 'tree of life' which is the same as Darwin's tree of life.
Proof !
gregrutz 1 year ago
the problem is creationists interpretation of the bible and their acertion that the days mentioned in the bible are 24 hours long, the bible says we are living in Gods rest day and have been for the last 6000 years or so, we are in the 7th day and so the other 6 could be 1000s of years each, there is no way to say how long each day would be. let the bible interpret itself and dont force it to your interpretations
hombre38 1 year ago
Ken Ham doesn't dig things up because creationists HATE to do research as it has this nasty habbit of proving creationism is bull$hit and then they'd need to make up new excuses to ignore the evidence.
DarthServo 1 year ago
The question comes to mind why someone would see fossil sea shells on every level of the geological column--which means they were buried together with land animals and plants--and get excited that he has found evidence of evolution?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Evolution is evident in the geologic column because the fauna changed over time , minute changes of even the genera changes are found. Evolution is factual evidenced from sea shells alone . The world is more than 70 percent water there will be marine fossils along all coastal areas - not from a universal flood .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience "the fauna changed" Perhaps you have not studied about zonation. I recommend checking into it.
"all coastal areas" Just look at the index fossils. Worldwide--not just in coastal areas--they are marine animals.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson During the paleozoic sea level was 600 feet higher (the ice caps had melted ) . Not the flood though becuase their are no trees , plants or vertabrate land animlas.Creationists often exclaim flood when ever their is mention of seashells on land .Leonardo DaVinci was the first to disprove Mountain seashell fossils where left by a flood .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience Were the land dinosaurs just out snorkling? Is that how they got buried with seashells?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
That's what the index fossils all are--sea shells--for every layer of the geological column.
Did somebody say FLOOD?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The video descriptions are now below each video , there is a button with double down arrows click that to scroll down link list .The 8th one down explains how we know a universal flood never occured (the aftermath would be a laundry list of 30 features thats unavoidabe if a flood had realy been historical ) .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience I'll have to consider that list some day, in the meantime, everything about the burial of the fossils, from the non-erosion between layers of the strata, to the index fossils which are sea life, to the positions of burial, to the directional nature of the burial of plant life, to the protrusion of vertical trees through supposedly millions of years of deposition, to the beds of coal that could not be from peak, all SCREAM OUT that there was indeed a worldwide flood.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Creationist websites and books have filled your mind with missinformation . A SMALL amount of studying comparing and contrasting will make it obvious . Please google polystrate fossils or look at the link to them in my description .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@Morgan Marvinson Polystrate fossils of trees through multiple layers are the results of flooded trees in flood plains (think of Louisiana flooded twice , NOT Noahs flood ). Polystrate fossils where explained over a century ago ,it is convincing only to those unfamiliar with geology and the subject .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience If you're openminded, Google "dinosaurs" and "clams" and read the evidence at icr.org
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Dinos are typicly found on land only , It is possible some have been found near a sea shore can you referance the claim in mainstream literature ? Or name the dino site that had seashells in the mix? Thats a new one on me .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience You must have misunderstood my point. I am not saying that they are only find by seashores. My point is that they are buried with seashells, pointing their being buried by sea water.
Dr. Hotton at the Smithsonian helped compile a chart that all dinosaur fossils were preserved in sedimentary formations. Some is fresh, some is salt, some is brackish. Salt water is not limited to coastal regions.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@Morgan Marvinson There are too many drought layers in the geologic column to be the result of a flood . Drought layers have cracked baked earth in the ground like dried tiles . The flood is story is myth and has no evidence to collaborate it other than misinterpreted wishful thinking .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience Those layers you are talking about are better accounted for by changes in the currents that laid down the sediments. This conclusion is based on laboratory studies. If you are of an open mind, watch "Drama in the Rocks" for details. If you are closeminded, then don't.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson unfortunately for that to work you require a few presuppositions that are false.
Namely, That Fossil layers are sorted by Size and density..
They are not sorted by size and density, They are sorted by biota and era, They do not intermingle.
flyingscience 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I've seen Drama in the rocks , I know about ICR .Both are lacking credentials and scientific peer review and adherence to the scientific method .Creationism has a ruined reputation worldwide any cursory examination will show its body of work as pseudoscience for a religious/ political agenda.
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience One only needs to consider the evidence presented. I don't need a phD to tell me that an apple is edible. There are scientists and laymen in every field who pull down the field. Just listen to some of the commenters on both sides here on YouTube. The problem with those who are credentialed are competing assumptions which seem totally ridiculous to the opposing sides. Naturalism seems irrational to theists and God seems irrational to atheists.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson : "Naturalism seems irrational to theists and God seems irrational to atheists" Naturalism is Gods method of running the universe with evolution of species : say more than 1 billion Christians .Fundamentalism is a Christian minority
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience I didn't know that the statements of God's Word were up to a vote.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Voted on by pagan Romans .There where dogma wars , Monotheist Christians where hunted down tortured and killed by Trinitarian Christians .Large rock slabs would be used to pin a mans arm to the ground .The man would starve to death or If he was lucky he'd be rescued but forever cripled .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience Yes, then revoted by those who, at the cost of their blood, relied on sola scriptura rather than traditional interpretation.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@flyingscience watch the mini series Pilars of the Earth- show were Christian beliefs grew from
mompm 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson You are aware enough alternate gospels existed to make dozens of alternate bibles . The present bible was made to beat another competing bible .Watch a few "who wrote the bible videos "
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience I happen to know quite a bit on that particular subject and I find the "could have been" scenarios a bit "out there."
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson ''I didn't know that the statements of God's Word were up to a vote.''
So you accept Allah's word without question?
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson ''I didn't know that the statements of God's Word were up to a vote.''
So we should not question the Quran? Just accept it as God's Word!
gregrutz 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson -Naturalism is Gods method of running the universe with evolution of species : say more than 1 billion Christians .Fundamentalism is a Christian minority
flyingscience 1 year ago
@Morgan Marvinson Creationism is thoroughly discredited and is illegal to teach in any public school system . ID has been discredited as well . Cult psychology of fundamentalism and child indoctrination / authoritarianism ensure its continued survival as a meme passed on generationaly .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@flyingscience "psychology ... child indoctrination ... authoritarianism"
That is precisely what the evolutionary establishment is doing with evolution in public schools by not allowing the theory to be questioned. They seem very worried about the privileged status of their monopoly in being able to indoctrinate children regarding naturalism.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@Morgan Marvinson Creationism cant pop its ugly head up in science classes because its not science . Ancient astronauts nuts dont get equal time , nor does big foot , or astrology or alchemy . Naturalism is the only game in town until a supernatural step is discovered.
flyingscience 1 year ago 2
@MorganMarvinson :-- by not allowing the theory to be questioned.-- You are full of buls... Science welcomes any attempt to prove it wrong. That`s the strong point of science. There is only ONE book that claims infallibility: The bible.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon And it's other translation thru another semetic culture - the Koran. It's so sad really. The middle east used to be such a bastion for learning and free exchange of ideas. Until the fundamentalists of every stripe showed their faces. Wisdom, compassion, intellectual curiosity, all curtailed by dogma. A crime against humanity, really.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@lizazoon Yes, by not allowing the theory of evolution to be questioned, it shows the extreme vulnerability of the evolutionary establishment. Science welcomes no challenge and punishes those who question the theory's adequacy.
The Bible does not claim infallibility. It is true that Christian groups claim infallibility of it, but the Bible claims that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" and it designates its purpose (2Tim 3:16, 17).
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson-- Science welcomes no challenge and punishes those who question the theory's adequacy.-- There is only one answer fitting; YOU ARE NUTS.!!!
lizazoon 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ''non-erosion between layers of the strata,''
Wrong, there are may Unconformities in the Grand Canyon.
. ''vertical trees through supposedly millions of years of deposition''
Only creationist say 'millions of years''. Scientists know the trees were buried rapidly or they would have rotted.
.
''index fossils which are sea life'
Dinosaure fossils can be index fossils. If you show me a layer of rock with a dinosaur fossil, I can tell you it is over 65 million years old
gregrutz 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Nope. just you talking. From the careful examination of just one evaporite deposit in Texas we can clearly show that the Noachian Flood never happened. Further examination of other sites for their chemical composition as well will confirm this. Shall I elaborate?
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman Go ahead and elaborate, but when you make a sweeping statement based on a single piece of evidence, fair-minded people will know that your opinion is prejudiced before even looking at any evidence to the contrary.
The cards are stacked against any fair hearing in public schools as well.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Oh MM, this one piece is just the start point. It's part of a whole that when a truely open mind looks at it and sees the depth and breadth of it must concede that a Noachian flood never happened, and therefore Genesis should not be taken literally. Please note that I'm saying nothing about deity, simply about a literal book of Genesis. And so , since you have asked for elaboration on one point, I'll begin. The Permian Opeche Share (continued)
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman I would turn this around, brother fisherman, that the truly open mind would consider the evidence for catastrophic flooding. Are you truly open to the evidence--or are you simply trying to present your point of view?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I can see the evidence every day at the road cuts I pass on the way to work. I've taken the time to read the geology of this land and ponder what it means. And from one formation alone and it's implications I can say that a literal flood as desrcibed by Genesis never happened. So, can you handle what this data is?
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman Bro, it isn't a matter of data. Smarter people than you and I look at the same data, you can describe, and see evidences of a worldwide flood. Your difficulty is not the data--it's the lenses you use to interpret the data. As long as you keep putting on that particular set of lenses, you will overlook the evidences of massive catastrophe.
There's one solution.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Like I've already shown you with the data from the Opeche Shale, it's not lenses, it's just the raw facts.So how can you account for the amount of heat that would need to be released to create just this one deposit? Then factor in all the other evaporite and anhydrite deposits found around the world. You cannot refute the plain facts of chemistry.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman I don't need to refute chemistry. Your hypothetical problems have been answered. I am not a geologist, so I am not qualified to answer your questions. The evidence of catastrophic causes for the grand scheme of geology is abundant. If you are in earnest about finding answers, rather than just sitting on your side of the divide and throwing clayballs, you can find them.
That's up to you.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson '' not a geologist, so I am not qualified to answer your questions. The evidence of catastrophic causes for the grand scheme of geology is abundant''
HOW DO YOU KNOW? YOU JUST SAID YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT GEOLOGY BUT YOU KNOW IT IS CATASTOPHIC.
Do you think ''uniformitarianism' means 'slow and grandual?
Wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Take your potty language elsewhere, Greg. I'm not a geologist, but I did take geology in college.
Uniformitarianism DID mean slow and gradual for many years. In the last several decades geologists have acknowledged catastrophism in the record. Bully for them!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Maybe you took it, but you obviously didn't pass it. And thank you for conceding. Neither am I a geologist, but I can and do READ and THINK. I take great pleasure in expanding my horizons rather them letting them be draw for me by those people who think a tome on the cultural history of a bunch of Semetic herders is an actual science text. I devour information on a wide range of subjects, and most importantly, I've never stopped asking questions.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman Actually, I got an A in the class. But that doesn't make me a geologist or qualify me to deal with the matters you brought up. Obviously you are more well read on the issues you raised.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Oh, excellent! Then why have you stopped asking questions? Why do you not continue to seek information simply for the sake of learning something new? The first thing I learned about any of this is how much real science draws on so many other disciplines to answer a question while dogma goes out of its way to to hide facts or ignore them. Nothing exists in a vacuum and everything is related to everything else.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman "Then why?"
Time constraints and interest. I'm starting a doctorate in HISTORY and editing/co-writing book on a specific period of the same. Pursuing issues of evolutionary thinking get third place--yet I have still taken time to read books on the issues and have come to this conclusion:
Evolutionary science is afraid of the really big questions--which I have repeated here on YouTube.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Which are? As I've not had an opportunity to review your YT career (such as we have them).
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman Could you not use your ability to "seek information" by clicking on my name?
Time out.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Time in. This is not the only line of inquiry I'm involved in. I've a wide range of interests, and basic geology is just one. Either you'll tell me what you consider the "big questions being avoided" are or you won't. But in any event, to comment on something you don't fully familarize yourself with does sound somewhat hypocritical. The data is all out there, if you choose to avail yourself of it. Ignorance, in the 21st century, is a choice.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman "Ignorance in the 21st century is a choice" Actually, "informed" people line up on both sides of the question. Have you familiarized yourself with the other side of the question? Probably not. You are "informed" in one direction--though, to your credit, informed.
If you will trace the course of my comments on this video, you will find that I never pretended to have a major expertise in geology. What I know, I know. What I don't, I don't. YouTube isn't a professional forum.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Absolutley I have. Indeed it's because of my exposure to YEC teachings growing up that I started asking these questions. Questions that made my parents very uncomfortable. "Who was Mrs Cain?", and what not. Once I started high school biology and chemistry I started to see what I had been told was just pure BS. Told and repeated by folks had enough of an answer for them. But it just wasn't based on facts. Is there deity? I don't know, but a literal interpretaion of Genesis fails.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman Yeah, high school is often the exit track for young people.
And much of what you were taught in your HS biology class was BS, but who was there to help you see that? You had already written off the opposition.
BTW, Mrs. Cain was one of his sisters. Her name simply isn't listed.
Gen. 5:4 (KJV) And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
I'm not your pastor, but I'm sorry you have lost your faith.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Losing faith is not necessarily a bad thing. I've replaced it with knowledge. And from that, everyone around me is able to profit. I've not graduated yet, but my hope is to go into research and work on Cystic Fibrosis treatments. Be glad to get back into a hospital. Been out that field too long. But biology, and the sciences in general corrects it's errors and learns from them, unlike organized religion.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman "biology, and the sciences in general corrects it's errors and learns from them, unlike organized religion." I would agree with your statement minus the comma. For organized religion to correct its mistakes, it has generally required an insider to speak from the outside pointing out its flaws, i.e. the Reformation. Corrections, in this way, have been made. Evolutionary science, on the other hand, has been unwilling to consider the reformation that is required of it.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The pope excommunicated all the people who followed the Protestants and you are all going to hell.
Watch the video you are spaming, you might learn something.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz We refuse to be out of communication with Catholics. They need to hear what the Bible says on their institutional errors.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Excommunication is a religious censure used to deprive or suspend membership in a religious community. The word means putting [someone] out of communion. In some religions, excommunication includes spiritual condemnation of the member or group.
In other words, the Pope says you are going to hell.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Thanks for the definition. The Pope who made this pronouncement is already in "hell" (the grave, Acts 2:31), so I'm not too worried about his pronouncement. My concern is what God thinks of me, and the best way for me to judge that is not by a human pronouncement but by what He has revealed in His Word.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Then go read you old book and stop spamming videos that prove you are wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I'll take the encouragement to read the Bible just fine. It's worth reading over and over again. But about the part about videos that prove me wrong ... first of all you would have no idea WHAT I believe unless I wrote about it and secondly, the flaw is in the video and that is why I took the time to respond.
Have you gotten the point that the engine is what powers a car? A driver only constrains its movement. A care with a driver without an engine has nothing to drive it.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson What creationist can't do is look at the whole picture. A car does not move without an engine and tires and gas.
Evolution takes natural selction and mutations and genetic drift and chance and the laws of nature and time. The fact is, it happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "A car does not move without an engine and tires and gas." I take that as a concession to my point about what powers the vehicle is NOT the driver (In Spanish they speak of "driving" a car as "conducting" a car--a better term.)
The fact is: the world exists with living organisms. That it occurred by means of random copy errors, laws of nature (where'd they come from? why some firm?), chance, and natural selection ("what doesn't kill you makes you better") is far from being a fact.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes, evolution is a fact, even if you won't look at the proof.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Again, let me commend you for such strong adherence to your belief system--even in the face of the fundamental contradiction of its assumptions, you still believe. I didn't enter this arena to complain about your belief; I entered to point out its fundamental flaws--without intelligence, chance forces such as random mutation and genetic drift, even as constrained by "natural selection" are insufficient to account for the complexity and genius of DNA, your strong belief notwithstanding.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Please point out just one fundamental flaw.
Why is anything 'insufficient''. You don't understand, so it didn't happen?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson So once again, what do you consider the big questions? I've had chance to read back over some eariler posts of yours and you do have a fair grasp on natural selection. It's just really hard to carry on a real conversation in 500 chars or less. So much context gets lost. Sigh.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman If you have read my working use of natural selection and consider it "fair," then you will undoubtedly see the basic problem of abiogenesis and evolution driven by random mutation, constrained by natural selection. It is fundamentally inadequate to explain the development of the species and both insiders and outsiders acknowledge it.
The geological record is not a record of origin but of mass burials. The origin of life or of most of the species isn't found there.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson But when considering abiogenesis, none of it is random. It's the nature of carbon compounds to assume certain configurations when exposed to given conditions. This is simply chemistry. Simple RNA enzymes have been created in the labratory by duplicating conditions found on the early earth. This data is further supported by a careful analysis on the minerals found from said times and the conditions under which they form.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman "It's the nature" Why should nature have laws at all? Why would one assume that it does?
I sit down and press the button on my computer and I get on the Internet. It's just the nature of the computer to do so.
We take so much for granted.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes, the electricity has no choise but to follow the laws a nature.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Isn't science great when it make you life easier.
And a bitch when it proves your bibble stories wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Science is merely studying God's laws in the natural world long after He ordained them. It helps us know a God of power, order, wisdom, and grace. None of these contracts the picture of Him presented in the BIBLE.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Except the bible is wrong about the earth being flat, the center of the universe, and the flood story. But it must be right about Jesus.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Chapter and verse please? i.e. PUOSU
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The fact is: the world exists with living organisms and has for several Billion years !
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz PUOSU, please. You asserted that the Bible was wrong on these matters, but only reassert your assumption as proof. The Bible does not teach that the earth is flat, so it cannot be wrong in what it teaches on that point. The Bible does not teach that the earth is the center of the universe, so it cannot be wrong on that point either. The Bible speaks of "the circle of the earth" (Isa 40:22) and teaches that earth is only God's "footstool" (Isa 66:1)--hardly the center of the universe.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Does the bible say there was a global flood?
Then it is wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "Does the Bible say there was a global flood?"
I take that as a recognition that you recognize that your other assertions do not square with the evidence.
Before we deal with assumption underlying your belief that a global flood is incorrect, tell me all you know about the evidence FOR the global flood.
I don't want to take your state of knowledge for granted.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson There is no evidence for a flood, it is a bible story.
Tree rings prove there was no flood.
Chinese history proves there was no flood.
Geology, No pre-flood, mud, post flood layers.
Ice cores prove there was no flood.
Fossils prove there was no flood.
etc. etc. etc.
I am sure you have an excuse for all of science being wrong, and some crap like 'trees only live 4400 years'' or 'floods make layers and sort fossils''
No, floods make one layer of mud.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "There is no evidence for a flood." So apparently you know nothing about the many evidences for the global flood or you have chosen to ignore it. Had you answered with "Well, there is one thing I would consider evidence ....," I would know that you are honest about your inquiry. Since you give a blanket denial, I must conclude that you aren't really interested in being honest with the evidence but simply want to rant.
Tell me something that can help me change my appraisal.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I can't help it if the bible story has no evidence.
So far all you have said is, Natural Selection and mutations can't account for evolution AND shown no evidence for a flood.
So tell us the name of the flood mud layer with all the dead bodies in it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "I can't help it if the Bible story has no evidence." Man, that is so lame. If you don't know any evidence for the flood, then I suggest you go do some reading first before we discuss this. Then we can discuss it knowledgeably.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Start by asking yourself the question: What evidence of a flood--besides its being described in the Bible--is so compelling to so many people? Then look at my note to NorthForkFisherman about "SCREAM OUT that there was indeed a worldwide flood" as well as about "Did somebody say FLOOD?" and then tell me the only thing I've talked about is the inadequacy of random copy errors constrained by Natural Selection to account for diversity of life on the planet.
And this is just the start.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson You did it again.
1. say there was a flood but offer no evidence.
The bible is the only reason people 'believe' in a flood
2.Claim NS is somehow ''constrained'' but don't say how.
Natural Selection kills things, how is it constrained?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz 1. I listed a number of evidences. Perhaps I need to go into greater detail so you are able to recognize what I am describing. The Bible is NOT the only reason people believe in a flood. That is my point.
2. NS is itself the constraining force on the true engine of change--chance mutation. The engine of change is copy errors, the constrainer of errors is NS.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Yes, mutations provides the 'Variation''
and NS constrains by killing off the weaker ones.
I think you have it!
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz This is what I have been saying throughout the course of our dialog. I guess you may be finally hearing me.
The point I make is that the "variation" provided strictly by "mutations" (and genetic shift or any other random action) is sufficient to provide for certain variations in body type, but not sufficient to account for the development of the past and current body types themselves.
This is the point of the extended synthesis (evolutionists) and it is the point of ID (theists).
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ''not sufficient to account for the development of the past and current body types themselves.''
Why not?
gregrutz 1 year ago
1.
@gregrutz "Why not?" Theoretically, given limitless time, it is conceivable that a robotized factory could produce a different line of working products, designed to make changes by an occasional error in manufacture that is merely approved or disapproved by Quality Control, IF the factory had limitless time--theoretically, mind you. (I think most thinking people would question whether such a factory could actually get the job done--even with billions of years to make the changes.)
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson So your argument is, '' I don't understand nature or how evolution works therefore it couldn't happen.''
Sorry but it did, Evolution the process did happen, proven and fact.
We can argue about how it happened [the theory] all day but that won't change the fossil record or DNA code that shows it did happen.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "... that won't change the fossil record or DNA code that shows it did happen." The fossil record is the very basis of my arguing that it couldn't have happened. What Darwin hypothesized has NOT been borne out in thousands of gradations of organisms over time. Rather, there is fixicity of species for evolutionary billions of years with radical change supposedly occurring in very narrow bands of time. You can't blithely claim that the fossil record supports evolution when it doesn't.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Correct, Darwin was wrong about slow and gradual, his ideas are 150 years out of date. He is dead. Evoultion is a fact.
gregrutz 1 year ago
2.
@gregrutz "Why not?" The problem for Random Mutation (the factory that makes changes by chance mistakes) and Natural selection (quality control) is that the fossil record reveals that organisms did NOT have unlimited time to evolve. Rather, Gould points out that organisms stayed basically the same for eons and supposedly made their radical changes in form in SHORT bands of time. RM & NS can't produce these radical changes. This is why the Extended Synthesis is looking for new forces.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Isn't 4 Billion years long enough?
That is not what Gould was saying. Things don't change, like sharks, if they don't need to. They evolved to fit a niech in nature.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You can't claim 4 billion years when the punctuated equilibrium points to much smaller increments of time for radical change. Check again. The stasis of organisms is throughout the animal kingdom, not just sharks.
The theory falls on its face. Will you be honest enough to own up to the evidence?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson I guess we need a new theory to explain how evolution happened. How do you think it happened? Why did only the feathered dinosaurs survive the last of 6 major mass extinctions that happened on the earth?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "I guess we need a new theory to explain how evolution happened." Or perhaps to question whether the evidence actually points at all to the kind of evolution that is claimed as having happened.
No dinosaurs with feathers survived. You've tried to claim before that there were several feathered dinosaurs (& I called you on this). None of these survived and, even if it could be proved that they had feathers, they POST-date the first avians. They were not the progenitors of birds.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The evidence shows evolution, that part is proven, the theory tries to explain how it happened.
Watch
watch?v=hBsoWzt4pyg
to see the feathered dinosaus.
There is no Post-date in evolution, just because true birds were aroung does not mean feathered dinosaurs had to die off, evolution is not a ladder.
I see birds/dinosaurs in my front yard all the time, how can you say "No dinosaurs with feathers survived''
You are an Ape/primate/mammal/tetrapod/vertebrate.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "The evidence shows evolution ..." I beg to differ--the evidence shows animals buried in water-born sediment--evidence of a flood. It is only the assumption of evolution that turns the fossil record into evidence for evolution.
I see birds in my yard too. They are birds. You seem to be unaware of the major problems with the therapod-to-birds hypothesis and the paucity of evidence for the feathers on the dinosaurs.
I am a human/primate/mammal/tetrapod/vertebrate, thank you.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Not all fossils are in 'water-born sediment'' Not all sediment is from water. All rocks did not come from mud. There was no global flood.
Read a geology book so you don't look so silly.
How do you explain dinosaurs ruling the earth for 160,000,000 years.
How do you explain dinosaurs with feathers, just deny them?
Watch the video you are spamming and learn something.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "Not all fossils are in 'water-born sediment' ..." Until the cenozoic--unless in a lava flow.
"no global flood" Then how do you explain the fact that SEASHELLS are the index fossils at every level of the fossil record--SEASHELLS ... AT EVERY LEVEL!
I don't need to explain dinosaurs with feathers. The jury isn't in on whether any dinosaurs actually had feathers. The dromaeosaurs postdate Archaeopteryx by 20 million evolutionary years (i.e. they were buried later).
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
1. Seashells are not index fossils.
2. Seashell are at every level, they didn't die off, IDiot
3. You don't know shit about geology.
4. Nothing can be postdated, we still have seashells dummy.
5. 20 different dinosaurs have feathers
6. Look up creatard in the dictionary and they have your picture.
7. Get a fucking education.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz When sophomoric insults start flying, it is time to leave their originator sitting in his own pew.
Pardon me if I do not join you.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 1 year ago
3.
@gregrutz "Why not?" Fundamentally, your response is about why RM & NS is insufficient to account for the various body types themselves.
Imagine an automated factory that produces bobble-headed trolls. Its only means of innovation is random production errors that are culled if the product doesn't work. Given 5 million years, will it give the bobble head any new functionality? Will it, for example, produce a troll puppet?
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Life is not a factory.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Unless you are going to invest reproduction with its own brand of intelligence or infer that Natural Selection has a com link with the DNA to whisper suggestions on how to improve the next generation of organisms then life is nothing more than a living factory when it comes to reproduction and innovation.
You (and other evolutionists) have divested the process of intelligence. You have made it a factory that operates on random copy errors and the Quality Control of all that dies.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Spontaneous generation is not Abiogenesis [start of life] is not evoulution. Try to stick to one subject.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Their basic concept is the same.
Wikileaked: The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented. However, the question of abiogenesis ... remains relevant today.
Spontaneous generation refers to ... the supposed process by which life would systematically emerge ... The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson You are talking about how the factory product changed, the final product. I am talking about how the factory itself evolved.
You analogy is wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Comment removed
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@gregrutz The analogy is apt. No, you haven't been talking about how the factory could have come into existence. You have only been talking about evolution itself. The spontaneous generation of abiogenesis is a MUCH bigger problem than getting an automated factory that produces bobble-headed trolls to make troll puppets by random errors. There is no tangible evidence that non-life ever spawned life. Science has gone on record as repudiating spontaneous generation. Only life begets life.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You forget that, at every level there are shells, shells, and more shells. The burial of these organisms does not represent normal burial conditions. To get a land animal to be buried with seashells--layer on top of layer on top of layer--requires massive flood waters.
The order you propose tells us what order the flooding and deposition overtook its prey. It does NOT show links between these various organisms.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@gregrutz For the evidences I listed, you will need to read my post containing the words "SCREAM OUT that there was indeed a worldwide flood" to NorthForkFisherman.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson A fully free lving cell is, of course, not currently possible. We haven't figured out if the basic metabolic processes were first or if a RNA enzyme was first. And you must remember, there is no reason to think that cells as they are today are exactly as they were when they first formed. Processes have had nearly 4 billion years to optimize and make the best use of the resources at hand while competing with other protocells.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson And with that I must adjourn. I've got to wrap up the chapter I'm working on and get some rest. Geology @ night during work. Molecular biology for classes, during the day. I'm getting too old for this crap.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ''evolution driven by random mutation, constrained by natural selection. ''
Creationists don't understand evolution, you are proof.
Evolution is driven by Natural Selection and constrained by random genetic change.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz "evolution driven by random mutation, constrained by natural selection." You know something about a car works, right?
What is the power under the hood--the engine or the driver? The name "driver" is misleading. What drives/empowers the movement of the car is not the man or woman behind the wheel. It is the engine. A car could still move without a driver because he or she is not the driving force in its movement. The driver constrains the movement--or lack of movement--of the vehicle.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
Evolution is driven by Natural Selection.
You say, 'Cars are driven by..........?.....engines?
.
A car could still move without a driver
Yup, I just sent my car to the store for some milk.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@NorthForkFisherman
MorganMarvinson is a creationist. You can't use Logic or Science to talk to him.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz And I'm OK with that. I do get irritated sometimes by dealing with these folks, but it's mostly an exercise to develop my own mind and expand my horizons. And if I can provide a data-based counterpoint to those who wouldn't know a real fact if it bit them on the ass, so much the better.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson Smarter people than you and I look at the same data
Bull Shit. No Creationist has ever studied the fossil record.
No Pastor has looked for geologic evicence of a flood.
''Lots of dead thing buried all over the world, musta been a flood'' is as far as they go.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The Opeche shale, dates to the Permian. The interesting thing about the Opeche is that in the center of the basin, at its deepest part, it is salt; 300 feet of salt. Permian pollen is found in the salt, modern pollen is not found (Wilgus and Holser, 1984, p. 765, 766). This bed has the appearance of a period of time in which the Williston Sea dried up, leaving its salt behind in the deepest parts of the basin, as would be expected (continued)
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson The area of salt deposition is 188,400 square kilometers. Assuming that over this area the average thickness of salt is half that 300 feet (91 m) in the deepest part, or 45 meters, then this deposit represents 9 trillion cubic meters of salt! With a density of 2,160 kg/m^3 this represents the evaporation of 540,000 cubic kilometers of seawater. It takes 10^24 joules to evaporate this much water. (continued)
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson That is two times more heat than would be necessary to raise the temperature of the entire atmosphere by more than 100 degrees Celsius. Noah, et al would have been cooked like lobsters in a pot. And then consider, there is more than 3100 feet of evaporative salt under Detroit in a formation that streches from Canada to the Appalachians. How much more energy would that be realeased into the air from that?
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson And remember, this is just one line of data followed out to it's logical concusion. The number of meteor strikes found, the amount of carbonates and their heat of formation, the biomass issue for both animal, plant, and microbial sources, and palyonological issues simply show no Noahican Flood, and a very long time of deposition. Were I not limited to 500 char at a time, I'd be more than glad to elaborate.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson ''That's what the index fossils all are''
Index fossil are animals that only lived for a short period of time and then changed. Their time slot is so well documented that geologist don't need to date every rock, they work backwards because they know when an animal lived.
A dinosaur fossil proves the rock it came from is 65 to 235 million years old. Understand?
gregrutz 1 year ago
AMEN!
leafmixer 1 year ago
@YASHUAHasRISE A young earth creationist museum built upon millions of years of reefs confirms an old earth and evolution . Thats like building a museum dedicated to Moon landing denial on top of NASA launch pads . If you where science literate you'd get the irony .
flyingscience 1 year ago
@YASHUAHasRISEN Its not "my " theory , its not a theory at all . The creation museum is built upon ancient sea bed / sea floor deposits of limestone and shale . The intact reef presence rules out Noahs flood as an explanation .
flyingscience 1 year ago
We cannot fully explain and understand the infinite with our finite minds
YASHUAHasRISEN 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YASHUAHasRISEN "cannot fully explain and understand the infinite with our finite minds" But the earth is quite finite and the processes and materials that make it up are quite understandable to those who have open minds and eyes. The facts are clear. No flood. And "Holy Texts" aren't science books. They're guides for living with each other, nothing more. And even in that respect they don't do too well.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago