Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

No, DNA is proof that information can rise by natural means, yes it's kinda is circular logic, but it's backed by the fact that DNA is information and has a mechanism for change and reproduction so it's information that rises by natural means, arguing that DNA is not natural is arguing that Life and Biology is Artificial

I think we are kind missing each other on this one. I am not saying that DNA is not replicated and used in biological organisms. However, replicating DNA doesn’t increase the total amount of information present, just like photocopying a book doesn’t double the amount of information present. The original information that is encoded in DNA had to come from a mental source because there has never been an observed natural process that can produce information. Is that a bit more clear?

No i wouldn't say that, i know it's artificial because i know art is an a artificial object and i know that artificial objects are not objects done by nature, or to be short "This piece of art is man-made therefore it's artificial"

First you said you knew the art was man-made because it was artificial, now you say you know it’s artificial because it’s man-made? Still too circular. Rather you could say, “I know this art is man made because I have observed man creating art but I have never observed a natural mechanism painting art, therefore I make an inference to design and say the art is man-made and artificial.”

Because cars houses and computers are artificial, still information isn't dependent on a mental source, since DNA exists it's natural and it's a fact

Well only if DNA didn’t originate from a mental source, which is the very heart of the debate. I believe it did.

---

This simply shows a fundamental misunderstanding of geology. As well as depositional features such as stratification, graded bedding etc ... we also see post-depositonal features which are the result of processes operating after lithification has occured.

Folding sequences such as those you describe occur over long periods of time under high temperatures and/or pressures. This is usally regional in scale and often associated with orogenic activity or other large tectonic events.

You're comparison with Mt St Helens strata is flawed simply because of the difference in depositional environment and style. One can easily distinguish volcanic sedimentation from other forms based on lithology, texture and structure.

For your hypothesis to have any weight you would have to propose a valid mechaqnism by which beds of almost every known lithology could be both deposited and deformed in this way as we can do with the current one.

---

Hey Sam,

I disagree with your analysis here. The folded strata are completely devoid of the expected signs of gradual folding or of folding after the rock had solidified. There is no evidence of fracturing and the sand particles are not elongated like would be expected. Rather it is quite clear that the sediment was still saturated with water when it folded. They actually very closely match the sediment that was layed down during the flood waters of the Mt. St. Helens event. A global flood paired with large scale geologic activity would accomplish a very similar task just on a global scale which is exactly what we observe. Many secular geologists will even admit that these are examples of catastrophic flooding, just on a regional level.

---

I'm pretty sure this is a non-issue, to be sure I'd need the specific example but;

These features have been well known to conventional geologists since around 1800. They don't really pose any problem to the conventional interpretation system or in sequence stratigraphy.

The problem here is that people often interpret a depositional time as; ammount of accumulation/time = rate per annum. Unfortunately this is not the case and deposition can occur in rapid events such as we see today on flood plains or in can occur very slowly.

I'm actually surprised to see you cite this as evidence. Even early 'creationist' geologists established this same conclusion; see John William Dawson etc ...

---

Yes, they are well known, and well ignored by many secular geologists and paleontologists alike. You will have layers of strata that are supposed to represent thousands and sometimes millions o f years of slow and gradual accumulation, but you’ll have this tree that spans up through dozens and dozens of layers. Some of these fossils will span through several layers of different kinds of rock, like shale to sandstone. Did the tree really stand up out of the ground for thousands of years while it was slowly buried? Of course not, so why think the layers all accumulated over thousands of years? Catastrophic depositing of these layers is a much better explanation.

I fail to see how this is an issue?

Some beds are deposited in areas conducive to burrowing animals, some are not. We don't find bioturbation in all areas regardless of the time periods involved.

When we examine soil layers from the last 1000 years or so we see evidence of biotubation, however when we get into the layers that are supposedly ancient we never find evidence of it. This is a good indication that these layers were laid down so quickly that the burrowing animals never had time to use them. There are also many places where we find thousands of fossils of plant eating animals but no fossils of plant life. This would also indicate that this is not evidence of an ancient ecosystem but rather evidence of a catastrophic burial.

This assumes that coastal erosion has always occured at the same rates and a number of other things for which there is no evidence. You'd have to be a lot more specific about that before it could even be considered as a valid point.

Well when we use the same uniformitarian principles that the old earth crowd loves to use we find that it doesn’t add up. So you can’t really assert here that these rates have been different in the past but then use uniformitarian assumptions else where to get billions of years. A global catastrophe is a far superior explanation for all the evidence rather than uniformitarianism which is very inconsistent with which phenomena it can explain.

Source?

Sediment input into the ocean basins varies based on a number of factors; primarily sea-level and the availability of sediment so again there is a false assumption of continous rates here. Also most areas of sea floor are constantly being replaced by subduction-and implacement.

Again I am just using the same constant rate assumptions the old earth crowd loves to use. Obviously these assumptions don’t always conclude the earth is old as many on here assert they do.

A source on the matter would be

“Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction” in the Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 93.

This claim by the RATE group has been widely criticised for severely defficient methodology and has never been repeated.

All those claims have been adequately addressed by the RATE group as well. If the secular community is so concerned with the group’s methodology and the professional labs that did the measurements maybe they should repeat the tests and get different results, rather than just screaming from the sidelines. They won’t though.

In your opinion and based on the unsupported belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God you mean?

Cheers

Sam

Nah, based on the fact that this model best explains all the evidence and provides us with the very pre-conditions of intelligibility, unlike any other model proposed.

Hope you have a happy new year's eve and day!