Now I'm watching an old debate tween Bill Nye who calls himself the Science Guy, and Ken Ham, biblical creationist. Ham brings up the fact that evolution involves historical science as opposed to observational science, which i've mentioned here many times, and Bill Nuyye challenges that idea, saying science is science, the distinction is meaningless.
But th distinction is not meaningless. Historical science studies events in the past, one time events that can't be replicated in the lab as observational science often can do. He says it's like the cience done by crime scene investigation in reconstructing facts to arfive at the identity of the criminal, but this isn't the same thing since they have many other situations of a similar nature to compare it to and use as clues to how to go about the investigation. That is not true of a one time event in the past. there is nothing to compare the worldwide flood of noah to. There is nothing to compare the supposed evolution of one species to another to, say fish to amphibian or reptile to mammal. All we see in the present is built in variation to a single species through the built in genetic codes ofr that species. Ther eis no way to see anthing that could show us how ot get a species from a species. That has to be imagined from scratch. As does the worldwide Flood.
One thing he says I have to mention, as he goes on to talk about the fossil record: He says there is not one single case of a fissil in one layer of rock showing up in the next layer. Not one case he says. He says that to show how irrational the idea that a Flood created the layers is since you would expect the creatures to try to swim up to the higher layer and pparently they didn't. But this is more important for the idea of evolution it seems to me, since they are often at pains to tell us that it isn't that one creature just becomes another creature but that the same reature remains the same while part of the population evolves into the new creature. Or they branch from the first creature into two different creatures. Evolution isn't one thing changing into tanother. Monkeys don't stop existing twhent , or I should say apes, when human beings evolve from them. They always want us to note that.
So kokay, th shere should be fossils from lower levels in the level above and in fact in all the levels above that. Fish evolved into amphibians but we still have plenty of fish in the world and so on. I'd neve herard that before , that the lower fossils aren't found in starata above their first appearance. i know it's not completely true because the trilobites show up in many layers, but he did sayh it so there must be one way it is true. I wish I could find out, but even when I could still see that's the sort of thing it's hard to discover.
But I'll say 8it again. This is evidence against evolution as much as it might beofre against the Flood. There is really no sense in the facts as they stand: each layer befing the location of very particular fossils that don't show up in other layers. That makes no sense on any system of explanation.
jUST WAN WBACK TO THE DEBATE AFTER WRITING THE ABOVE TO FIND HIM SAYING THAT THIS IS CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT, THAT THERE ISN'T ONE SINGLE INSTANCE OF ONE FOSSIL APPEARING IN THE LAYER ABOVE ALTHOUGH IF THE FLOOD STORY WAS TRUE YOU'D EXPECT ANOMLS IN THE LOWER LEVEL TO TRY TO SWIM UPWARD, AND IF WE COULD PROVE THAT THERE IS SUCH A CAST WE COULD CHANGE THE WORLD. i GUESS MEANING WE COULD WIN THE DEBATE FOR EVOLUTION ONCE AND FOR ALL. bUT OF COURSE AS i JUST POINTED OUT WE WOULDN'T. bECAUSE IT MAKES EVEN LESS SENSE FOR THEIR CASE.
\jUST TO TRY FOR AN ANSWER TO HIS CHALLENGE, i'D START WITH THE FACT THAT THE LAYERS MUST SURELY REPRESENT CHANNELS OR STREAMS OF WATER WITHIN THE OCEAN OF THE FLOOD, THAT PICKED UP AND CARRIED THINGS ALONG IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY COULDN'T HAVE DONE MUCH IN THE WAY OF SWIMING ANYWHERE. jUST FOR ONE EXAMPLE i THINK OF THE LAYER SWEEN INT THE GRAND cANYON THAT WAS STUDIED BY CREATIONIST sTEVE aUSTIN, THE LAYER OF THE NAUTILOIDS. bAZILLIONS OF THEM ALL IN THAT ONE LAYER, PRETTY CLEARLY ALL SWEPT THERE IN ONE WAVE OR WATER.
jUTiT'S VERY LIKLY THAT MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE CREATURES IN ANY LEAYER WERE ALREADY DEAD BY THE TIME THEY WERE DEPOSITED ON LAND SINCE THEY WERE SWEPT ALONG WITH TONS OF SEDIMENTS WHICH WOULD SUFFOCATE THEM.
correction:: OOPS. wHEN HE SAID IF WE FOUND A FOSSIL FROM A LOWER LEVEL IN TGHE NEXT LEVEL UP WE'D CHANGE THE WORLD i WAS WRONG TO THINK HE MEANT THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE FOR EVCOLUTION. oBVIOUSLY HE MEANT IT WULD BE EVIDENCE FOR THE fLOOD. i GET HIS POINT BUT i DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A BIG THING FOR THE fLOOD, AND IT WOULDN'T EVEN BE MUCH FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION EITHER BECAUSE eVOLUION
THEY NEED A LOT ORE THAN A SINGLE FOSSIL HERE AND THERE, THEY NEED SWARMS OF FISH IN EVERY SEA LAYER AND AMPHIBIANS IN EVERY LAYER ABOVE THE ONE WHERE THEY FIRST APPEARED IN EVEN HIGHER NUMBERS AND SO ON.
fOR SOME TIME i'VE HAD IN MIND THAT i NEED TO FIND OUT HOW MANY FOSSILS FROM LOWER LEVELS SHOW UP IN HIGHER ONES AND HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND THAT INFORMATION
i'D ASSUMED THERE WERE SOME, i DIDN'T KNOW THERE WERE NONE WHICH IS WHT nYE SAYS IS THE CASE. i STILL FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE. BUT FOR EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE THERE REALLY DO NEED TO BE JUST AS MANY REPTILES IN THE MAMMAL LAYER AS THE REPTILE LAYER, JUST AS MANY AMPHITIBANS IN THE LAYERS ABOVE THE ONE SWHERE THEY FIRST APPEAR, AND EAVEN MORE THAN WHEN THEY FIRST APPEAR. bECAUSE ALL THOSE ANIMALS PERSIST INTO THE PERRESENT, THEY DON'T DISAPPEAR WHEN SOME NEW CREATURE APPEARS THAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE EVOLVED FROM THEM. bUT THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOWS, ACCORDING TO bILL nYE. THE EVOLVED CREATURE AND THAT ONE ALONE IN THE LAYER ABOVE THE ONE WHERE THE CREATURE IT SUPPOSEDLY EVOLVED FROM APPEARS. THAT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION AT ALL.
i'M ADDING THIS ONE TO MY LIST OF EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION. iN FACT i THINK IT'S BETTER EVIDENCE IN MANY WAY
Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official) (youtube.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment