No, you create a totally post hoc tortuous jamming of what you believe to fit around the facts. The same approach would apply if the evidence did not support evolution, in fact it would apply to any kind of evidence no matter what it was. Thus it does not explain the evidence.
The question for you, the one you have not addressed, is why does the evidence fit the expected patterns of evolution completely without exception, from species to species and from era to era, ... the complete geological, geographical and biological pattern?
When you ask:
Message 67: How does a bunch of pictures lined up in a row which are said to be millions of years apart ...
Is not it just just as plausible that they were created as they are found in different parts of eternity?
If sudden independent creation were the cause, then why are all the fossils located in time and space within walking distance of each other, instead of on the other side of the world?
Eg - why are the various ancient hominid fossils found not just in Africa, but a specific area of Africa -- why not some in Asia and some in Australia and some in the Americas?
Sudden independent creation, as a scientific hypothesis, should predict no relation in location or time for similar appearing fossils, because it has no mechanism to cause such a relationship. That is the one "test" that would show that it was valid in place of evolution, and that the evidence (epic) fails to fall in line with that prediction, should be taken as evidence that the hypothesis is false. IFF you want to approach things scientifically instead of by hand waving ...
Or, as Dr A says, the evidence is an elaborate hoax created specifically to fool people into thinking a falsehood. God as Loki.
It's not just a simple arrangement of pictures selected and arranged to fit the theory, it is the arrangement of the fossils by their relative location in both time and space -- the objective empirical data does the arranging, not the scientist. The Theory of Evolution explains this spacio-temporal matrix, special creation does not.
Homo sapiens is the only extant species of its genus, Homo. While some (extinct) Homo species might have been ancestors of Homo sapiens, many, perhaps most, were likely "cousins," having speciated away from the ancestral hominin line. There is yet no consensus as to which of these groups should be considered a separate species and which should be a subspecies; this may be due to the dearth of fossils or to the slight differences used to classify species in the Homo genus.
One current view of the temporal and geographical distribution of genus Homo populations. Other interpretations differ mainly in the taxonomy and geographical distribution of hominin species.
That graphic clearly shows both the temporal and the spacial distribution of the fossils and the clear connections from one find to the others, where widening areas show diversification (cousins and possible sub-species), and the overlaps show probably hybridization, and the flow up shows some dead ends, with the one path that leads to Homo sapiens, with it's current diversification and global distribution, just as expected.
Posted by the non-admin mode, to show that such can be done. Admins are exempt from summation mode restrictions, but inadvertently such is also extended to the non-admin linked ID.
Anyway, despite appearances that the summation mode had started after AdminPhat message 2873, it actually didn't kick in until 5 messages later, which is after Percy had posted his 2 replies to Faith (messages 2877 and 2878).
EvC Forum has a belief motto: Understanding through Discussion
Long discussions such as this thread often shed light on the reasoning and/or belief of the participants.
There is no winning or losing in these types of debates. Further understanding is hopefully the desired result.
That's my summary and I'm sticking to it!
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
At one point I estimated that Faith had only responded to 10-15% of my posts, and naturally that left many unanswered questions. Some answers were provided, but they were usually made up and so can't be considered answers. Here is a list of questions still unanswered:
In stratigraphic columns, why does radiometric age increase with increasing depth?
Why does radiometric age also change laterally across a strata?
Why are radiometric isotopes older than 80 million years completely missing, something that could only happen if they'd had at least 4 billions years to decay?
What causes magnetic sea floor striping, and why is it consistent with radiometric ages?
In stratigraphic columns, why do fossils appear increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth?
In stratigraphic columns, with increasing depth why are there first no mammals, then no dinosaurs, then no reptiles, then no amphibians, then no fish, then no multicellular life?
Why do you think the Grand Staircase region's geology to be representative of all geology worldwide?
If the Paleozoic layers were already present when the Supergroup layers tilted, why do the faults associated with the Supergroup extend down into the Vishnu Schist but not up into the Paleozoic layers?
If the Supergroup layers actually tilted, where did all the missing cubic miles of rock go?
If the Grand Canyon had been cut suddenly then the canyon walls would be vertical. How do you explain the sloping walls of the Grand Canyon?
Why is the rate of slope retreat at the Grand Canyon consistent with an age of millions of years?
What is your evidence that all tectonic activity worldwide occurred after deposition of sediments?
Given the randomness of floods, why has no fossil ever been found in the wrong strata evolutionarily?
How did the flood leave behind cross bedded sand dunes with animal tracks in the Coconino?
How did the flood transport and deposit sediments that include burrows, termite nests, worm holes, etc.?
What is the definition of kind?
How can you argue about kind without a definition?
Why, if you believe the Bible is God's inerrant word, do you think there are exceptions to God's claim to have "destroyed all living creatures" in Genesis 8:21?
How did the ocean keep all the sedimentary types separate?
Since floods only sort continuously by size/density of sediment and do not create sharp contacts, what is it about strata that says "flood" to you?
How did the deposition of sediments by a series of waves leave no evidence of that process behind?
If the flood rains washed all the land sediment into the sea, how was life left behind on the denuded landscape to leave tracks when waves deposited new sediments?
Why do you think Bertault's views relevant since his experiments deposited sediments at an angle of 45° and required a flume?
Since 3/4 of the globe is currently covered by water, how is a truly global flood that covers the remaining quarter much different?
Why did no fishermen survive the flood?
How was the original salinity of the ocean restored after the Flood?
If the fountains of the deep were undersea volcanos, where is the evidence that many undersea volcanos erupted 4500 years ago?
And here are a list of things Faith still has doesn't understand or has misconceptions about:
How to anchor views in facts.
Subordinating everything to the Bible is not science.
That the strata of the Grand Canyon formed through Walther's Law, except the Coconino.
The claim that no terrestrial landscape is as straight and flat as strata is false.
Strata are not as flat and straight as Faith thinks, even at the Grand Canyon.
Strata are rarely uniform with regard to sediment type.
Life in the past lived and died and sometimes became entombed just as it does today, above, atop and beneath surfaces of terrestrial, marine or lacustrine sediment, not on flat slabs of rock.
Most strata are marine. While terrestrial landscapes can become strata, they usually don't.
Lithified soil is called a paleosol.
Rocks do not form by drying but by diagenesis.
There are no underground rivers and streams eroding buried strata (karst structures are a different matter).
Buried strata cannot tilt without affecting surrounding strata.
Angular unconformities happen when sediment is deposited atop tilted strata, such as at Welcombe Mouth Beach.
Accelerated continental drift with the attendant accelerated creation of sea floor at mid-oceanic ridges would release enough heat to boil the oceans. This is even without taking into account the heat from friction and subduction.
In the oceans, sea floor sediment depth increases with increasing distance from mid-oceanic ridges where the sea floor forms. Sea floor near mid-oceanic ridges is young and has little time to accumulate sediments, while that far from mid-oceanic ridges is much older and has had much time to accumulate sediments.
The sediments comprising strata were always deposited during a particular time period, whether the millions of years of geology or the year of the Flood.
Stratigraphic columns continue to grow today, mostly at low points such as lake and sea bottom.
Fossil abundance varies widely among strata.
Life buried today could eventually become fossils.
Speciation does not take millions of years.
Old evidence is still evidence. Evidence has no expiration date.
Vegetation and trees did not keep buried sediments loose so that the 40 days and nights of rain could wash them into the ocean.
The dog does not have enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today. It can be no more genetically diverse than the gray wolf from which it is descended.
A definition of kind that is different for each kind is not a definition.
Dr. Adequate started this thread by throwing the gauntlet for Creationist to respond to. His premise was simple. He stated that Creation Science was incapable of explaining the fossil record, thus offering any creationist who cared to take up the challenge/bait, the opportunity to offer an explanation.
At this point, the thread that is Dr. A's challenge has reached over 2800 posts. But a quick look would show that less than 50 of those posts are from a Creationist other than Faith. And of those fifty posts, I would consider only those few from mike the wiz to be worth pointing to. The next largest poster, Big Al35 wanted to talk about skeletons of giants and the plot of globalist to deceive us into not believing giants were real.
Then there are the nearly 900 posts by Faith, the most active Creationist left to post here. Probably, the less said about their content the better. But perhaps they are representative of what the Creation vs Evolution debate has become these days. Now that the Dover case is well in the past, perhaps there is just not that much interest among science savvy Christians in trying to make the case for the Flood or for Special Creation. What's left are a few folks who are still passionate about the issues, but who don't have enough knowledge of science to even make interesting arguments.
That's too bad. I used to love these dust-ups.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT
As we know Faith is dedicated to the idea that fossils must be evidence of the Flood because if they are not they are a mortal blow to YEC dogma.
The obvious falsehood of her position is illustrated here Message 2509. She is reduced to claiming that cherry-picked aspects of the fossil record - examined at a superficial level - are consistent with the Flood. As she makes clear she doesn’t claim that even those support her views over the mainstream view.
It’s pitiful stuff. A feeble attempt at deception which can only fool those who are already inclined to prefer YEC dogma to science and aren’t willing investigate the real evidence - or even take note of the points raised by Faith’s opponents.
And yet she insists that the fossil record must be accepted as good evidence for the Flood on those flimsy grounds. In any rational mind a deeper investigation is needed - both of Faith’s claims, and of the fossil record itself. The observed order of the fossil record alone is sufficient evidence to refute Faith’s claims.
The fossil record is not evidence of the Flood. That is a clear fact.