BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 07:07 PM

No-one can say that Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy don't exist. They are both hypotheses awaiting definitive proof.

No-one can say that x or y don't exist.

They are both hypotheses awaiting definitive proof.

They are not hypotheses. It's very tempting to characterise vague or fanciful notions as hypotheses, but if the term hypothesis is to mean anything at all then it must meet certain criteria. A hypothesis is a proposition which attempts to explain an observed phenomenon, and it must be able to submit to scientific testing. Generally, we are talking about issues that have been observed but which cannot yet be satisfactorily explained by current theories without further investigation. Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy are fabrications (don't tell my kids, even though they're both over 30) which are not based on actual bona fide observations. As a confounded atheist, I'd put the existence of God in the same category.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 07:24 PM

Sorry for the cut'n'paste, but it says it better than anything I could write:

Colloquial Use

To use math expressions, the general use of these words goes in order of importance as: Fact > Law > Theory > Hypothesis.

"Fact" in Everyday Language: A "fact" is something that is true. Whether you like it or not, "facts are stubborn things" (thank you, John Adams … or, "facts are stupid things" courtesy of Ronald Reagan). In general use, a "fact" is the strongest thing that can be said about, well, anything.

"Law" in Everyday Language: In everyday language, a "law" is generally on the same level as a fact. A law is something that is true, that generally explains or answers lots of different things. However, outside of politics, "law" is rarely used unless actually referring to something scientific.

"Theory" in Everyday Language: This is where the supposed insult to scientists comes in when you call something "just a theory." Outside of scientific circles, a "theory" is more of a supposition. "I have a theory that my cat will meow when it hears someone at the door." It may or may not be "true," but it's a supposition I have that is probably supported by at least some sort of observation. But it's really "just a theory" and is just as likely to be shown wrong at any given time as it is to be shown right.

"Hypothesis" in Everyday Language: A "hypothesis" is sort of on the same level as a "theory," if slightly below. To most people, they can be used interchangeably, though most will just resort to "theory" because "hypothesis" is an extra syllable longer and makes you sound like a nerd.
Scientific Use

In science, the order of importance of these is almost reversed: Theory > Law > Hypothesis > Facts. In addition, each term has a specific, well-defined use.

"Fact" in Science: It may surprise you to know that a "fact" is generally used the same way – it is an observation – but it is very specific. For example, if I drop a ball while holding it in the air above a surface, it is a fact that it will fall to the surface. This term is usually not used, however — we resort to "observations." For example, I observe that when the wind blows, a flag will flutter.

"Hypothesis" in Science: This is an "idea" that is formulated to explain observations (or our "facts"). In the above to examples, I might hypothesize that there is a force that pulls on the ball, counteracted when I'm holding it. Or that the wind exerts a force on the flag that causes it to flutter. The purpose of a hypothesis is to explain one or more observations in a cogent way. A good hypothesis must be testable – it must be able to make predictions about what would happen in similar situations – otherwise a hypothesis can never be verified nor refuted … and it remains "just a hypothesis." At present, String "Theory" is really just a hypothesis.

"Law" in Science: Laws are a descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. For example, Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion are (1) Planets travel in ellipses with one focus being the Sun, (2) planets sweep out equal area in equal time, and (3) a planet's period-squared is proportional to its semi-major-axis-cubed. Laws are generally made from many facts/observations and are effectively an "elevated" level from a hypothesis. Another example are the Laws of Thermodynamics. Because a Law is just a description of how something behaves and it does not explain why it behaves that way, it is usually considered to be below the level of a theory.

"Theory" in Science: A theory is really one of the pinnacles of science – what nearly everyone strives to make out of their hypotheses. A hypothesis is elevated to a theory when it has withstood all attempts to falsify it. Experiment after experiment has shown it sufficient to explain all observations that it encompasses. In other words, a "theory" has never been shown to be false, despite – usually – hundreds if not thousands of separate attempts to break it. It explains the observations with one or more mechanisms and, because it provides that mechanism, it is considered to be above the level of a Law. Examples these days are the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Germ Theory of Disease, and yes, the Theory of Evolution.

I should note that theories are usually conglomerations of several different hypotheses, laws, facts, inferences, and observations. For example, while the Theory of Evolution is a theory, various mechanisms for it are generally still hypotheses, such as Natural Selection (though some may quibble with me over that).

Another good example of a Theory is the Standard Model of Particle Physics. This describes how fundamental particles and forces interact. It is based upon countless experiments and observations and it rests on solid mathematical framework. It has many different laws in its make-up (such as how particles behave, or how forces interact) as well as many observations (such as the mass of the proton, or the energy of a tau neutrino).

A third example was partially mentioned above – Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Tycho Brahe and Johannas Kepler made many detailed observations of planetary positions over the course of many years. Kepler formed a hypothesis about how planets moved based upon the data. From the hypothesis, he made predictions on where planets would be later on. When these were confirmed, his hypotheses were elevated to laws. Later, Isaac Newton came along and with his Theory of Gravity was able to provide a physics-based framework for why and how those laws worked.

Finally, it should also be noted that nothing in science is "forever." It is always subject to further tests and observations. In many cases, people really do try to do this since that's how you make a name for yourself. If you're the scientist who has verified for the 123,194th time that a ball and a feather fall at the same rate in a vacuum, so what? But, if you're the scientist that has found evidence that gravity itself is not a force emitted by an object but rather a bending of the fabric of space itself, then, well, you'd be Einstein – a household name.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jan 12 - 07:34 PM

Excuse me if I've got it wrong, Paul, but I think you just posted precisely the same explanation of hypotheses as I did.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 03:58 AM

Mthe GM and Bill...thank you for your responses.

It seems to mee that most people look on the power of mental telepathy in much the same way as you view belief in god.

However it has been proved to me that telepathy does exist and I am a committed believer,though we are far from any scientific proof on the subject; just as many with religious faith have had the existance of "god" revealed to them personally.

I also think that the whole issue is being over-simplified in the thread....there are many definitions of "god" and the whole subject is enveloped in metaphor.....even creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 04:07 AM

It seems to mee that most people look on the power of mental telepathy in much the same way as you view belief in god.····

.,,.
Even if so Ake [& I should be interested in your statistical basis for this assertion], I can't see that this would make them in any way equivalent concepts - either in general, or specifically in relation to the viability of scientific evidence.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 04:14 AM

akenaton,

'However it has been proved to me that telepathy does exist..'

Could you explain more, please?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 04:30 AM

Well, Steve you make a good case for being an atheist rather than an agnostic and, if I'm honest, I tend to be near the atheist end of the spectrum myself. But, based on the description of a hypothesis posted/pasted above:

"[A hypothesis] is an "idea" that is formulated to explain observations ... The purpose of a hypothesis is to explain one or more observations in a cogent way. A good hypothesis must be testable – it must be able to make predictions about what would happen in similar situations – otherwise a hypothesis can never be verified nor refuted … and it remains "just a hypothesis.""

It seems to me that creationists hypothesize that God created all living things, which are unchangeable, and that He created them in a very short time out of nothing. This hypothesis is, of course, unlikely to be testable and creationists dishonestly get round this little problem by claiming that God is omnipotent and His mind is unknowable. Nevertheless, they are the ones who are advancing such an absurd hypothesis and the onus is on them to produce the supporting data; in this sense I am agnostic. I wouldn't normally bother with such foolisness as creationism - but, unfortunately, such idiots wield considerable power in 'The Land of the Free etc.' and they must be opposed.

Scientists, on the other hand, have produced (and are still producing) abundant data in support of the Theory of Evolution (no longer a hypothesis). But the best of those scientists are open-minded and non-dogmatic (Science wouldn't advance if they weren't) and agnosticism seems to me to be a more open-minded stance than atheism - and hence more scientific. I can categorically claim that I don't see my agnosticism in terms of 'hedging my bets'!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM

"I'm simply stating that we see no animals, in the fossil record or without, that support the claim that one creature can turn into another. It's perfectly rational to say that one variation of the bear species can turn into another variation of the bear species. But there is no support for the claim that a bear can turn into another species, as Evolution says that they ought. "

As Bill D has already pointed out, you're either wilfully misunderstanding what evolution is or you're having a pop. Either way, this isn't a debate if you can't recognise the difference between evolution and magic and insist on using the two concepts interchangeably.

As for punctuated equilibrium verses gradualism, I suspect both of these act as agents in speciation and the degree of influence of each on the evolutionary is a product of a number of variables, for instance environment, genetic isolation etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 08:30 AM

It seems to me that creationists hypothesize that God created all living things, which are unchangeable, and that He created them in a very short time out of nothing.

This fails the hypothesis test on two counts: it is not based on an observed phenomenon (no matter how much its proponents may protest that it is - it's no more than a huge non-sequitur), and it can't submit to scientific testing. State the position as the null hypothesis (equally bogus), and the thing still can't get off the ground: "Observations of life on earth, in all its diversity and beauty, as well as consideration of the universe as a whole, cannot be explained by the existence of a non-observable super-being who trumps all the known laws of that life and of that universe." Why, that looks so rational, but it too can't be explored by science. I'm sticking with "fanciful notion."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Iona
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 01:32 PM

"But they're still bears, right? They're not turning into seals, or puffins, or lemmings (or cats)."

To even USE that as a dis-proof of evolution is to misunderstand the very concept. Of course bears don't "turn into" totally different species. Bears came from a 'line' of creatures which have followed a totally different evolutionary path for multi-millions of years. Now, IF you go back several HUNDRED million years to single celled entities, then it is true that there are common ancestors.....but the splits occurred so long ago that we can't directly trace them. Whatever bears are, they have such distinctive DNA that they will always just be 'slightly different' bears!

I'm not saying that we ought to be able to watch a bear turn into a seal/cat/etc. I'm just saying that we see tons of adaptions and no evidence that a bear has come from a different creature . I can go to any museum and see tons of variations of species, but no transitional forms in fossils--just drawings and speculations. How do you know that evolution happened? What is your evidence that over millions of years a single cell organism became all the life we see today? If evolution were true, we ought to see in the fossil record simple organism and then as we work up, more and more complex creatures. But we don't. We only see fully formed creatures in fossil layers, and even then they are out of the supposed 'order' that they ought to be if evolution were true.

but the point is, it (your religious stand) does not NEED to be 'defended'. You can believe in the Bible and no one can 'prove' that it is not "the word of God"...but we **CAN** prove certain things about ourselves and our history that the Bible simply does not and can not deal with! We are what we are...and we evolved how we evolved, and IF you don't see all that described in the Bible, is is because those humans who wrote, translated, edited and **interpreted** the Bible had no access to the data that we have today.

You need proof that the Bible is true? Look around you! Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. The amazing detail of a leaf, a cell, a tree, an insect, the human mind. What do you mean "The Bible simply does not and can not deal with proving things about ourselves"......what do you want proven/dealt with? The Bible applies to every area of life, even if it doesn't mention it directly. Give me a situation, and the Bible has an answer for you. No, speeding tickets are not mentioned in the Bible. But there are doctrines in God's Word that can be applied to speeding--or anything else.
Everything has a cause. You can trace anything back to a cause, but where did the causes start? Are causes eternal? What set them in motion? What is the original cause? The very scientific method is based upon the law of causality; that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. We are inevitably led to the question "What is the cause of causes?" What started the causal universe? was it an infinite chain of primary causes? or was it an uncaused primary Cause of all causes (the One absolute Cause that initiated everything)?

When you...or anyone else... demands that evolution would require "bears turning into...etc." before our eyes, that is simply, as someone mentioned before, a "straw man"... which means an obviously incorrect premise which was not claimed.

I was using bears as an illustration. I wasn't saying that we ought to see a bear turning into a salamander (or whatever) in a lifetime. I was saying that if evolution is true, bears ought to be able to change into a different creature other than a bear. Evolution teaches that, given enough time and mistakes, a creature can turn from a monkey-like creature to a human. We don't have proof for this, we don't have fossil records, we don't have evidence--just speculation.

Inventing terms like micro-evolution ...just to have a word that 'sounds' like a distinction does not change anything.
I didn't invent the term, it's in the dictionary. It's also on Wikkipedia: Microevolution and Macroevolution. Adaption vs. the ability of a creature to turn from one species into another.

Now... if you care to see & explore some amazing data and genuine, real, touchable evidence of evolutionary paths that didn't survive....Google "Burgess shale". and...ummm...be VERY glad we are not related to the organisms in THAT sample of this Earths history
I'm familiar with the Burgess shale. It is an amazing collection of marine invertebrates fossilized in a layer of shale, discovered in Canada in 1940. There is a huge diversity of creatures there, even ones previously undiscovered, but nothing simple or primitive that would indicate them being an ancestor to any other creature--instead we see an amazing variety of sea creatures, intricately designed and unique. Simply because some of them are extinct is not evidence for evolution, it's just what happens- it happened to the dinosaurs, it happens to other creatures like the mammoth, the american lion, etc. etc.


There are SO many versions of the Bible, and many 'books' that were left out, that even 'reputable' scholars lament.
Add to that the translation problems and the many THOUSANDS of different interpretations and "reliable collection of historical documents." becomes quite an issue.

"So many versions of the Bible" But there are very few actual documents/parchments copied from the originals. Those are the true word of God, and the 'translations' are only the word of God insofar as they are true (verbal plenary) to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. The "Other books" so called are perhaps interesting accounts, but they are not the inspired Word of God as the Bible is. The Bible alone is perfect, it is the ultimate authority, and, as I've said before, an ultimate authority can't be judged by something else or else it isn't ultimate--whatever it is judged by is!

also..." But there is no support for the claim that a bear can turn into another species, as Evolution says that they ought."

One more time: That is NOT what evolution does...or would.. claim! If you continue to assert something that is NOT part of the basic theory of evolution, you will simply be like a mother stating "I KNOW MY son would never do something so terrible, no matter how much evidence you have!"

Please show me, what *do* you say? That a bear is the pinnacle of evolution, and even though it is a descendant of a different species (as obviously bears haven't been around since the big bang), it can't evolve into something new? Show me the 'transitional forms' in the fossil record that prove that the bear has evolved. The platypus too, while you're at it. *good natured grin*

Believe in a god... and draw comfort & inspiration from the wisdom and parables and content of your Bible... but IF you believe God created everything out of nothing, you are not so far from what cosmologists assert today. You are simply naming that first big 'creation' differently...which is fine. What happened AFTER that we can study, and as I said... it is what it is.

I don't believe in any 'god', I believe in the God of the Bible as He has revealed Himself. I believe that the world was created, in six literal days. There is evidence for that. Evolutionists believe in eternal matter, while I believe in an eternal Creator. Evolutionists believe that nothing created everything. Christians believe that God created everything. I quite agree with you "What happened AFTER [the world came into existence] we can study, and.......it is what it is. And it's my contention that the evidence fits much better with the Creation/Flood model, not the evolutionary model.
And if we are both on the same page and just name our 'first big creation' differently, then why do you even bother to debate me on this? It's just 'different strokes for different folks', right? Ah, no. There are complications to both of our worldviews. And that's why you--and I-- find it worthwhile to discuss this!
Remember, there is only one truth. The blind men may feel different parts of the elephant and call it what they will.......but it's still an elephant.

The Bible just does not provide, anywhere near, a good enough standard of evidence in support of a creationist model of the world.

The fossil evidence all points to a catastrophic water burial. Fossilization does not take millions of years. In Texas we've found fossilized fence posts, and a man who was murdered (in the 1950s or 60's) and buried was found later, with his leg petrified inside his leather cowboy boot, proving that it does not take millions of years to fossilize an item, it just takes the right conditions.
This fits perfectly with the Biblical account of Genesis, that all the animals except two/seven of each kind (meaning two of the dog kind, not two of every dog variety, two of every cat kind, etc), drowned in a catastrophic flood, which would have produced conditions perfect for fossilization. If the Genesis account is true, we would have to find millions of fossils showing evidence of a water burial. We should find millions of clams and other sea creatures buried alongside of flying animals and dinosaurs.
What do you know? This is exactly what we find.
Evolutionists attribute all this water-evidence to slow and calm seas over millions of years, or small floods, or rivers. But if this were the case, the fossils ought to show evidence of exposure to the elements. We ought to be able to see wear and tear on them, of wind and rain and millions of years of gradual fossilization. But we don't. The evidence points to a quick and catastrophic burial--every time.

Pretending to be interested in evidence when you're not is lying. You'll go to @#!*% .

I am interested in hearing what the evolutionists call evidence for their belief. So far all I've seen is a lot of adaption, served up with a generous helping of insults insinuating that I'm an idiot who can't seem to open her eyes and see the facts. When I look around the world, all I see is a ton of evidence for a worldwide flood and a creator who designed every creature intricate from the start. I don't see any evidence of millions of years or random acts of chance that created everything. Plus, I just don't have enough faith to believe that!


By the way, scientists DO recognise that organisms are designed- but they are designed by the other organisms with which they interact, and with the physical environment, rather than by an external party.

And what was the original 'designer' of these organisms? Here again is the causal argument. Are causes eternal? Or was there an original uncaused Cause? The "Physical environment" didn't just *bang* come to be out of nothing--did it? Is "Nothing" the cause of everything?

If you truly believe that the old testament is a truthful and accurate collection of facts, then you have obviously never heard of, let alone played, the childhood game of Chinese whispers. It is not known at what point it became a written, as opposed to verbally transmitted, entity and there is no reason to suppose that there were no alterations due to the personal bias, prejudice, or intentions of the many scribes who must in 6000 years have been involved in its transmission.

We call it 'Providential Preservation". While we do not have the original penned-by-Paul (or whoever the author of a book may be) documents, we do have accurate copies of them. God gave man His words to write down, and He has also seen to it that His word is preserved in its perfection. Now, translations of those original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts are (as I've said before) only the word of God insofar as they are literal to the original languages. Of course to an atheist, this is no argument at all because God 'doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean that it's false, it just means that they don't have the foundation that a Christian does.

As to the New Testament, being based on the gospels which were written a hundred years or more after the death of Jesus, and exposed once more (as was the Old Testament too) to the machinations of generations of MEN with widely divergent ideals and interpretations of meaning.

To regard it as the definitive word of "GOD" is at the very least naive, and at worst self deluding dishonesty.

It's a funny thing. The manuscripts that we have access to today of the New Testaments can take us back to A.D. 120 or 150--and people say that 'to be sure they are corrupt out of men's different opinions (surely they can't be word-perfect copies!). After all, that's an awful long time after the originals.'
Really?
How about Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars (Commentarii de Bello Gallico)"? The manuscripts we have are 900 years after the original. People don't seem to be up in arms about that!
Aristotle's "Poetics", the oldest age of the manuscripts that we can put our hands on is about 13 or 14 hundred years.
Homer? the oldest one we have is about 21 hundred years.
The New Testament? a hundred and twenty to a hundred and fifty Within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.
'but of course we can't trust them, because they report supernatural events. We all know that the supernatural is impossible'
Well, they *are* called 'supernatural'. Beyond what you normally see in the orderly world. Miracles aren't contrary to nature, they're just contrary to what we know about nature. God made the rules, He can breach the laws of nature whenever He pleases to--if you call it a breaching of laws. really, it's just a breach of what we see as laws of nature. An athiest of course isn't going to accept that argument, because it can only be understood if one has a Christian worldview.

When Jesus was crucified, He quoted Psalm 22. "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?"
Psalm 22 is a perfect description of the crucifixion of Christ. The odd thing?
Crucifixion hadn't even been invented yet when David wrote the Psalms. I know that because the Romans invented crucifixion a thousand years later. So here's David, writing a description of a death that he never witnessed in his life, but that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. That's just one of many prophesies that were fulfilled in Holy Scriptures.
Assuming that there were a God, omnipresent and omnipotent, he would surely find a better broadcasting medium than several thousand years of mere men with a generous helping of bigotted control freaks, zealots, and genocidal murderers, wouldn't you think?
"you can't trust the Bible because it was written by men!"
God used men to write the Bible. Isn't that amazing? That He would transform perfectly wicked murderers like Moses, Paul and King David into regenerate followers of Christ, that's astounding, and it proves that if we repent, even the most wicked of us can be saved from our just punishment because of what Christ did.
But if you say that we can't believe the Bible because it was written by men, you'd better burn all the books that you own. 'Cause I'm pretty sure that they were written by men too. The difference between Encyclopedia Britannica and the Bible is that the Bible, while it was put pen-to-paper by men, it was inspired by God--He put the words in the men's mouths, the very words that they were to write down. And the fact that God used sinful men to execute His purpose is just a case in point--That God saves, even the most heathen of sinners. It's not an argument against the Scriptures, it's an argument for it.

I believe the Bible because it was written by eyewitnesses...

And there you have it - a completely delusional individual and "true believer" with no knowledge whatsoever about how the book known as "The Bible" came to be.

You want scientific evidence for the Bible? okay. But of course you know about the scientific method. In order for something to be proven scientifically, something has to be observable, repeatable, and measurable. Unfortunately, historical events can't be observed, measured or repeated in a lab. You can't use the scientific method to prove that George Washington was our first President. If you have a problem that we can't prove the Bible by the scientific method, then you have a problem with history.
If something is written, the only way you can question it is if you don't have corroboration or there's internal inconsistency. We can't find any internal inconsistency, and we've got multiple corroboration. We have three languages, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, we have three continents: Asia, Africa and Europe. We have over fourty authors, most of whom never met one another, because they wrote over the period of some sixteen hundred years. According to your dictionary, that would be the very defintion of corroboration. So unless you have anything that would negate what we find in the bible, you have to accept the fact, based on the evidentiary method and not the scientific method that he Bible is a reliable collecion of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses.,,,,,


If a friend of yours told you that his mule had just spoken to him, and given him a message from God, what would you think, and how would you reply?
I would respond by going to the Bible and seeing if what the donkey said was in accordance with the Scriptures. If not, then it was not a message from God, but it could have a number of different explanations.

If a friend of yours told you that his plans for the day included killing his child, because God told him to, what would you think, and how would you respond?

See my response above.


quite a few scientists do recognize God as creator.

Yep. And quite a few architects design absolutely @#!*% buildings.

I think you are quite mistaken, unless you call some of the world's greatest scientists bungleheads. For instance, Johann Kepler (scientist in the fields of Physical Astronomy and Celestrial Mechanics) said:"...and thou my soul, praise the Lord thy Creator, as long as I shall be: for out of Him and through Him and in Him are all things….To Him be praise, honour, and glory, world without end. Amen."—J. Kepler, Harmonies of the World, 137

Isaac Newton was a strong Christian and a great scientist (known best as the man who discovered gravity, he worked with calculus and dynamics):
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."—I. Newton

Robert Boyle (Chemistry and gas dynamics),: "The last service that, I hope…is to induce men to pay their admiration, their praises, and their thanks, directly to God himself; who is the true and only creator of the sun, moon, earth, and those other creatures, that men call the works of nature."—R. Boyle, 1725

"When man thus perceives, that in respect to all these vital operations he is more helpless than the infant, and that his boasted reason can neither give them order nor protection, is not his insensibility to the Giver of these secret endowments worse than ingratitude?"—C. Bell, 1852 (Bell worked with Surgery and Anatomy)

"In no part of creation are the POWER, WISDOM, and GOODNESS of its beneficent and almighty Author more signally conspicuous than in the various animals that inhabit and enliven our globe."—W. Kirby, 1835 (worked with Entomology)

"The consciousness of the presence of God is the only guarantee of true self-knowledge. Everything else is mere fiction, fancy portraiture—done to please one's friends or self, or to exhibit one's moral discrimination at the expense of character."—J. C. Maxwell, 1858 (Electrodynamics and statistical thermodynamics)

"I see everywhere the inevitable expression of the Infinite in the world; through it the supernatural is at the bottom of every heart."—Louis Pasteur (Microbiology, Bacteriology, Biogenesis Law, Pasteurization, Vaccination And Immunization)

"If I know the answer, you can have it for the price of a postage stamp. The Lord charges nothing for knowledge, and I will charge you the same."—G. W. Carver (Modern Agriculture)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 01:54 PM

You need proof that the Bible is true? Look around you! Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn.

Give it up, folks - you're dealing with a nutter.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 02:14 PM

"Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. The amazing detail of a leaf, a cell, a tree, an insect" ···
.,,.,.,.

and a plague rat; a vampire bat; a malarial mosquito; a rabid dog; a dear old friend with Alzheimers or dementia...

Thanks, Iona ~~ you can stuff your Creator where he won't see too much of his 'Creation'!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 02:19 PM

Please show me, what *do* you say? That a bear is the pinnacle of evolution, and even though it is a descendant of a different species (as obviously bears haven't been around since the big bang), it can't evolve into something new?
It is hardly worth the effort, but that is precisely the opposite of what evolutionists believe. Bears, along with every other species with genetic diversity, is currently in the process of evolving into other species that fit their environment even better. You want to see transitional forms?   They are all around you.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 02:28 PM

Well, at least I got an answer: I find it absolutely mind-boggling, but it's an answer.

"If a friend of yours told you that his mule had just spoken to him, and given him a message from God, what would you think, and how would you reply?
I would respond by going to the Bible and seeing if what the donkey said was in accordance with the Scriptures. If not, then it was not a message from God, but it could have a number of different explanations.

If a friend of yours told you that his plans for the day included killing his child, because God told him to, what would you think, and how would you respond?

See my response above."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 02:39 PM

Refusal to look at evidence in now way disproves the existence of that evidence, nor does it justify asserting the evidence does not exist.

When you see "no evidnece" it is because you are staring into your own denial.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 03:37 PM

To the Creationist, every transitional fossil discovered creates two new missing links. Can't win - ain't worth it. Iona's ignorance is impregnable.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 04:23 PM

I've had this same argument with self-appointed missionaries far too many times to waste much time with it now.

A pastor friend of mine once commented, "Some hard-charging evangelists have their minds so set on getting themselves, and everybody they can harass into Heaven that they, themselves, are no earthly good for anything."

This particular pastor's method of evangelizing was to keep his mouth shut (except for sermons in his own church) and show by example.

Iona, Pete, look up Matthew, 25:35-40.

Read it carefully.

Study it.

Then, go live it.

And stop pestering people until you learn to live as Jesus says you should live (see above Scripture).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 05:10 PM

For example, here is the complete transition from a dog-like (actually more pig-like) ancestor to modern cetaceans in 11 small steps. Iona will surely point out that his means there are 10 missing links.

http://evolutionfun.com/images/whales/caldogram.gif

click

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 05:14 PM

iona-great to have someone more accomplished and prolific than myself on the same side ;-ie that of Christ;creator and saviour.seems that little of substance is offered in answer yet.
i suppose there might be some fossils that might be claimed as transitional[and some were once but since shelved]but if darwin was right we surely ought to have plenty.as i quoted on 28th s j gould acknowledged the scacity of transistional forms.nothing like a hostile witness to truth!
citing the terrible things that happen in nature is an argument;albeit mostly of an emotional nature.it is i think most effective against theistic evolutionists since they dont believe the bibles account of the fall.

on a minor note iona;i think i read or heard somewhere that the romans "perfected" crucifixion from existing persian practise rather than completely inventing it-just to clarify.
but a great post which i enjoyed reading. pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 05:32 PM

Pete,
Which of the fossils in my link above are not transitional?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 05:42 PM

Well, since its been raised again I went to the the trouble of discovering whether psalm 22 is a perfect description of a crucifixion of anybody years before crucifixion had been invented: the answer is no, in my view. There is nothing at all to suggest crucifixion - just a much more general torture that applies to crucifixion plus dozens of other imaginative schemes to inflict pain on some victim. There is only phrase that suggests crucifixion, namely the reference to pierced hands and feet. But the (Christian) sites I have visited say that the literal translation seems to be 'lion' rather than 'pierced' but since the literal translation doesn't make sense 'pierced' has been used as a sort of approximation. Hardly the sign of someone who insists on the literal translation of the original, I would say, and not a good demonstration that the original psalm referenced crucifixion.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 06:04 PM

well tia-certainly an impressive link of line drawings but just entering 3 of the names in creation search engine revealed that one with supposed legs was finns and a few bits of bone somehow gives the evolutionist a clear outline of the animal!

dmcg-i think you have a point though there are a number of prophecies that could be cited but i aticipate ionas comments on it
goodight from me on this side of the pond.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 06:05 PM

Iona... I have just read your long reply, and the several replies TO you.

Because I began as a Methodist,(then to a Unitarian, then to a philosopher with 130 university hours) and know many religious people of many faiths, I have some idea of how important their faith is to them. Therefore, I do not insult you with words like 'nutter'..... but I must say that, because of the following, I feel I can no longer continue this debate with you.
   Your counters to my (and others) specific points are classic examples of fallacious reasoning and linguistic confusion. I mentioned before 'circular reasoning', and when you defend the Bible by USING your acceptance of the Bible as proof, you are committing one of the basic errors of circular reasoning. 55 years ago, I was presented with the argument:

"God is by definition the most perfect being possible.
The most perfect being must have existence as one of its attribute.
Therefore, God exists."

Your statement: " But there are very few actual documents/parchments copied from the originals. Those are the true word of God, and the 'translations' are only the word of God insofar as they are true (verbal plenary) to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. The "Other books" so called are perhaps interesting accounts, but they are not the inspired Word of God as the Bible is. The Bible alone is perfect, it is the ultimate authority, and, as I've said before, an ultimate authority can't be judged by something else or else it isn't ultimate--whatever it is judged by is!

IS a perfect example of that circular reasoning where your 'proof' is assumed by your very statement! You are defending your **belief** in the Bible by assuming that you can't be wrong...because the Bible can't be wrong.--- and round & round we go.

\ then:
"You need proof that the Bible is true? Look around you! Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. The amazing detail of a leaf, a cell, a tree, an insect, the human mind.

Oh my... I can't even begin to explain briefly WHY that does NOT necessarily 'scream' conscious "Creator"! It IS possible to accept 'what is' without assuming 'intelligent design'... I do it every day!

then...

"...but where did the causes start? Are causes eternal? What set them in motion? What is the original cause? "

I studied 'causation' and how to understand it for 12 years in various classes - and nowhere is there a requirement to assume anything in particular about an 'original cause'-- that is merely an abstract concept. We DO NOT KNOW where or how "causes start", and deciding that something must be named "God" is simply a personal opinion...or, many personal opinions, which means nothing. If 50 million people told you elves built bridges, and you never saw one, why would you accept it?

You simply continue to **mis-state** what evolution 'should' be able to show, and use your own misunderstanding to repeat other things.

I cannot discuss it all with you if you will not or cannot get my basic premises, and obviously YOU can't convince ME of anything if *I* will not accept, God, Jesus and the Bible as ultimate authorities.

It's a funny thing about humans that they are able to not only 'reason', but to reason imperfectly when it suits them... *wry smile*

(I may read here, but I will not directly reply to 'you', as I don't wish to fall into insults similar to others. You have your faith...enjoy.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 06:08 PM

Well, Iona, careful who you choose to befriend. Pete pounces in triumphant accord on snippets of your daft post but let me tell you he doesn't know what he's on about. He refuses to read Origin yet he jumps in bed with you on the "transitional forms" nonsense. To be honest, your crackpot notions simply reveal that there is insufficient between you and anyone who has even the faintest regard for science to have a constructive conversation. I once saw a drawing of a bear that was the exact intermediate between Yogi and Boo-boo, so that proves you're wrong. That's about the highest intellectual level you could manage, I suppose. Let's drop God and talk Jellystone.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 07:40 PM

I think a few graphics will help clarify things.

The Evolution of Man:
CLICKY #1

Into civilization and modern technology:
CLICKY #2.

Evolution of physical fitness in modern America:
CLICKY #3.

The Fundamentalist, anti-evolution, young-earther's response to his or her own forebears:
CLICKY #4.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 07:54 PM

Don... ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 08:01 PM

Forebears, Don? Yogi, Boo-boo... who are the other two ? The missing intermediate forms I hope...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 08:06 PM

Oh, yeah.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 08:10 PM

"Look and the birdie, kids. Smile, now!"

CLICK.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 08:15 PM

Creation search engine? PLEASE tell me you're fuckin' kidding. PLEASE!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 08:18 PM

This just in! Science has found the missing link between primitive apes and civilized mankind!


It's....ummm.... us.












(yes, very old joke)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 30 Jan 12 - 11:51 PM

Akenaton, the big difference between telepathy and religion is that most of the claims made by religion are obviously impossible. They break the physical laws of the universe. Telepathy, on the other hand, doesn't, at least as far as we know. It could be an as-yet unidentified ability of the human brain. I can conceive of a scientist 100 years from now proving it's existence and figuring out how it works. Unlike religion, we don't have any direct evidence that telepathy is impossible. But virgin birth? Raising the dead? Son of God? Turning water into wine? Splitting the Red Sea? Creating the earth in seven days? Creating the earth at all?? The list goes on and on.

If I had to choose, I'd take telepathy any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 12:04 AM

John P,

Every one of those things are as easy to fake as telepathy. That makes them just as easy to prove.

You haven't read enough Science Fiction.

But virgin birth? (Medical trick)
Insemination with something thin enough not to break the Hymen,


Raising the dead? (Medical trick)

Doctors do that NOW, thousands of times a day.

Son of God?

Assuming there is a God, the Son ain't much of a leap.

Turning water into wine? (chemistry trick)

A bit of kool aid and 100 proof vodka would have easily fooled a wedding guest of 2000 years ago.

Splitting the Red Sea? (meteorology trick)

Moses times the escape for a windy day with just the right wind.

Creating the earth in seven days?

Define day


Creating the earth at all?? The earth exists. it was created, we are just arguing about how.

The list goes on and on.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 12:51 AM

Well, sure, you can fake anything you want, including telepathy. But we have no conclusive evidence that unfaked telepathy is impossible, unlike many religious claims.

The earth exists. it was created

We'd have to define "create", but it seems to me that it implies a conscious act. By that definition, we have no evidence that the world was created. I'll agree that the world exists.

I've probably read a few thousand science fiction books, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 02:05 AM

"We'd have to define "create", but it seems to me that it implies a conscious act."

It's certainly taken that way by proponents of the blind watchmaker argument, and this linguistic problem makes self- organising systems very difficult to explain to those with a purposive cast of mind. In particular, it's very difficult to talk about how evolution happens- evolutionary strategies, ecological opportunities etc.- without using language that suggests some kind of conscious planning. I'm sure this deficit is part of the cause of confusion among those who haven't grasped how it can happen by itself.

It's a bit like those calculations of the minute odds of human life existing at all- you know the one, how many stars like the Sun, how many planets, how many habitable, etc. etc. all ending up with some fabulously small probability of humans existing at all. Ignoring the fact that it didn't have to be us, here. The calculatio of something, somewhere gives rather shorter odds.

Toss a coin 120 times, and record the results. The probability of getting that sequence is exactly one in two to the power of 120. Impossible, but you just did it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 02:56 AM

I would have to believe in The News of the World if the test was written by eye witnesses in the time of other eye witnesses. Except The News of the World is dead.

Neitze anyone?

So, Peter the starman is happy that he and Iona are on the same side in this discussion. Except everyone else is trying to appeal to whatever reason they may have or, like me, having a good laugh at them. (Wrong to mock, I know, but appeasing just encourages the buggers.)

Occams razor, itself a medieval faith tool, seems to apply here. You're outnumbered, the pair of you. In the meantime, you are doing a disservice to the vast majority of people comfortable to be called Christians, as their use of god as a metaphor is debased by idiots intent on clinging to the bible as an instrument to play their fantasy on. Sorry that reality isn't good enough for you, but you know, one of you can be laughed at, a few of you can be tolerated but an international commune?

Bugger off, and thanks for leaving the sins alone, more fun available for the rest of us who don't have hang ups and repressed backgrounds.

There, I've got as far as pity, despite trying not to.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 07:03 AM

Iona - all you have to do to silence the doubters is find a fossil in the wrong place. Find the fossil of a horse in Cretaceous deposits; find a bony fish in the Burgess Shale, find a monkey in the Solnhofen limestone, find a rhino amongst the dinosaurs. Find the bones and silence the doubters. Find body fossils that prove you are right.

You'll be the most famous person in the history of science; you will have shown Darwin was wrong by presenting hard evidence. If you're right, these fossils should be everywhere and not too difficult to find. Think of the fame, and the glory you could reflect in, the boost it would bring in bringing the word of God to the ignorant masses. You'd have reason on your side and solid, reproducible evidence (because this must have happened lots of times, right?).

Go for it! The knowledge you need is easy to pick up, no-one lives too far from a fossil locality and it should be simple to review the biota and find the fossils that don't fit.

It's that simple. Really.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 07:18 AM

Iona,

How do you surmise that a dead cowboys leg petrified in his boot is a fossil?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 07:18 AM

"on a minor note iona;i think i read or heard somewhere ..."

pete, do you ever check your facts when you post here - or do you just rely on your imperfect memory?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 07:30 AM

dmcg-i think you have a point [Thank you!] though there are a number of prophecies that could be cited

Other prophecies, or whether this is a prophecy of Christ's death in general rather than by crucifixion in particular is not the point. IF ... and that should be a huge IF ... there was an accurate prediction of something specific a thousand years before it was known then there's a very limited set of logical possibilities, and both athiests and agnostics would agree. This is probably not exclusive, but the list consists of things like:

(a) it is genuinely an indicator God exists
(b) it indicates time travel in some form is possible
(c) it is a pure co-incidence, or one created by good intuition
(d) someone constructed the future event to match the prophecy
(e) someone altered the prophecy, or its interpretation, to match the event

I'm sure there are more. And the probabilities of each is rather different. But the starting point has be to test that 'IF'. And, as I say, it fails, in my view.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 10:07 AM

As one of the most rabid atheists hereabout ;-) I'd have to opine that telepathy is only very slightly more likely to exist than God. We would have to detect some kind of transmitter and receiver in the human brain that, as yet, we know nothing about, and some kind of energy that could travel between brains that we appear, as yet, also to know nothing about. As with God, we could never say it's impossible, but it's slightly odd that we are at precisely the same point (i.e., point zilch) in comprehending the nature of either. In the case of telepathy, working on the assumption that it isn't pure magic (in which case I give up), you'd think we'd be somewhere with it by now. We need evidence, not anecdotes alone. I am certain that I once saw ball lightning over Epping Forest. But it was in the early hours of the morning and, try as I might, I couldn't find any other witnesses. I don't see much point in sitting here asserting that I know for certain that ball lightning exists, because I simply don't have evidence, just the anecdote. I wouldn't force that on anyone, despite what I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Mr Happy
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 10:18 AM

Steve,

Had you had these witnessless visions in the middle ages, you could've been a venerated saint by now!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: John P
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 10:27 AM

Steve, I'll agree that we have no hard evidence for telepathy, but note that our understanding of the interior workings of our bodies and brains is currently at the kindergarten stage. We know there's a lot we don't know. I certainly don't believe in telepathy (in the sense that I don't believe anything that's presently unknowable), but it doesn't actually break any currently known laws of the universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 10:35 AM

I am as much of an atheist as anyone on this forum; but I have more-than-anecdotal experience of my own suggesting existence of what I can only describe as a form of telepathy. Of course, if I related the experience to you, you might well dismiss it as merely 'anecdotal' because it happened to me not to you ~ like your ball-lightning but v-v. There were other witnesses, but I don't expect I could locate any of them at this time of day ~~ it was back in mid-late 50s.

But anyhow; my point in replying to Ake on this matter is that the 'telepathy' question is different in kind from the 'God' one, and more likely to be a confuser than an enlightener as part of this thread.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 11:26 AM

"Iona - all you have to do to silence the doubters is find a fossil in the wrong place."

Of course, Sugarfoot, palaeontologists find such fossils all the time - but hastily re-bury them or hide them in museum cupboards. It's all part of a vast conspiracy against creationism. Oh, those wicked palaeontologists!

Still, it's amazing how few palaeotological whistleblowers there have been over the years. It's an extraordinarily well organised conspiracy. Although, of course, in reality professional scientists have very little to do as everything they really need to know is in the Bible ... errr ... does this make any sense? No, thought not!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM

Steve, I'll agree that we have no hard evidence for telepathy, but note that our understanding of the interior workings of our bodies and brains is currently at the kindergarten stage. We know there's a lot we don't know. I certainly don't believe in telepathy (in the sense that I don't believe anything that's presently unknowable), but it doesn't actually break any currently known laws of the universe.

We have no evidence of any kind (bar anecdotes, which shouldn't really count as evidence, eh? At least, not on their own!) Your final statement sounds suspiciously akin to the claim of those believers who say that we can't prove that God breaks the laws of nature, because we don't know all the laws of nature... I think, actually, that telepathy, as usually characterised, does break the laws of nature we know about. Depends somewhat on how confident we are that we'll find some new laws of nature that, er, break the laws of nature...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 12:40 PM

Jack Horner presented the idea at the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists annual meeting last year. The easiest and best way to prove us all wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 12:41 PM

I am as much of an atheist as anyone on this forum; but I have more-than-anecdotal experience of my own suggesting existence of what I can only describe as a form of telepathy. Of course, if I related the experience to you, you might well dismiss it as merely 'anecdotal' because it happened to me not to you ~ like your ball-lightning but v-v. There were other witnesses, but I don't expect I could locate any of them at this time of day ~~ it was back in mid-late 50s.

Well if it's more than anecdotal it's good evidence!

I didn't know there were degrees of atheism. I kind of thought that being an atheist meant I was firmly wedged at the far end of the spectrum. An inch to the left and I'd be one of them pinko, agnostic chappies!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 01:06 PM

I wasn't going to, but I can't let this pass.

"Evolutionists attribute all this water-evidence to slow and calm seas over millions of years, or small floods, or rivers. But if this were the case, the fossils ought to show evidence of exposure to the elements. We ought to be able to see wear and tear on them, of wind and rain and millions of years of gradual fossilization. But we don't. The evidence points to a quick and catastrophic burial--every time."

Firstly, consider the Chalk. I know there are sites which claim that it formed from algal blooms in the Flood water, but hundreds of metres thick?

Interestingly, the chalk is remarkably pure, and had to be laid down in very, very clean seas. It is so clean that in places, thin wisps of volcanis ash can be seen, like cigarette smoke. This, in the south of England, can be traced to volcanoes in Germany. Which would have been above the water. There are more metres of chalk above these traces.

At various horizons, there are what the old quarrymen called hardgrounds. Here it is clear that the ocean floor was not having chalk deposited on it at the time it was formed, and it contains traces of living things which burrowed in it, crawled upon it, and grew in it before the burial continued.

In the Chalk can be found fossilised heart urchins. Known as micraster species, these can be seen to change in type from those at the lowest levels to those at the top. They gradually adapted to their life crawling through the slurry on the seabottom, with the shape developing to one which found the movement easier, and mouth and anus changing position. The older forms are not found at the top. The younger forms are not found at the bottom. There is a clear sequence of change.

As for not finding eroded and damaged fossils, try looking in various descriptions of derived fossils- I'm trying to find one not behind a paywall, but it's clear from various abstracts that fossils which have formed, been eroded out of their source rocks, and then been redeposited into a new rock are pretty common. Also search reworked and redeposited fossils.

Though I see that a creation site claims that scientists descriptions of such fossils are specious, such interpretations depend not only on the locations of the fossils in younger layers, but also the nature of the paleoenvironment which is revealed by the strata. So such fossils would be found in deposits which look like river or beach structures, or volcanic ash fall deposits, which show their history in the grain size, sorting, and shape of the deposits.

My garden lies on top of the Chalk, but consists of a layer called Clay-with-flints. (It's difficult to work.) It has been formed by the erosion of the limestone component of an overlying rock - a lot of it, leaving a layer of clay containing flint which forms during the formation of the Chalk from silica deposited from sponges. All flint is thus fossil material, and some of it has actually replaced the mooulds of living things which were in the Chalk. I therefore have derived fossils in my garden.

In the nearby chalk pits now occupied by Bluewater shopping centre, the rock walls show the path of an old river cut down into the chalk. This will contain fossils first eroded in the formation of the Clay-with-flints, and then washed into the river to be deposited again. They will show the wear caused by the movement of the water.

Those fossils you claim to be absent exist. You just have to look in the right place. Go out and do it yourself. Use a fossil book to identify them. Map exactly where you find them, and look for their context - that is the type of rock they were found in and what lies above, below, and around them. Work it out for yourself. Don't rely on books and websites.

And the word used by most people is adaptation.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack
Date: 31 Jan 12 - 01:27 PM

There's plenty of evidence of wear and tear on fossils, and plenty have been eroded out of one age of sediment and redeposited; the are called 'reworked' fossils. There is one case where we think a Jurassic ammonite was fossilised, weathered out and was then eaten by a dinosaur for use as a gastrolith, and after the dinosaur died or coughed it back up it was reburied in the later sediments. Wonderful!