Evidence for God from Science

A lot of YECs claim that micro-evolution can happen very quickly within "kinds". Is there any function preventing, say, a kangaroo "kind" evolving into 60 kangaroo species within a few hundred years? Or an original dog "kind" from evolving into roughly 50 dog species today? According to YECs, this must have happened with astonishing rapidity, as well as people multiplying into distinct ethnicities, because the earliest records tell us that animals and humans looked virtually identical to those of today. Some YECs say that the post-flood climate forced animals to rapidly diversify (although animals today are hardly adapted to living in harsh ice conditions) and that dinosaurs would have offered considerable selection pressure on animals. What are your thoughts?

As a student of biology...that kind of explanation makes no sense and frankly is a "made up off the top of my head" explanation given by YEC proponents. There are lots of problems with it biologically and geographically.

Actually, regardless of what Ive says, there are biologists who are YEC, and they do offer explanations for a post-flood world. He obviously rejects them, but why would we suspect any different. Essentailly YEC and OEC agree on most the facts but differ on the timeline.

Also, when you say "earliest" records, I am curious as to who was keeping these records?

jlay wrote: Essentailly YEC and OEC agree on most the facts but differ on the timeline.

For mainstream science, there are a lot of available timelines for speciation and other events. I haven't been able to find any comparable scientific research timelines for YEC or OEC. Perhaps jlay can point us to some papers by biologists he referenced which specify such details.

This study seemed to indicate that rapid change can happen when animals are domesticated, I saw a show on it once a few years back but here is the wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox


Dan

Jlay:

Actually, regardless of what Ive says, there are biologists who are YEC, and they do offer explanations for a post-flood world. He obviously rejects them, but why would we suspect any different. Essentailly YEC and OEC agree on most the facts but differ on the timeline.

Also, when you say "earliest" records, I am curious as to who was keeping these records?

The Egyptians, Chinese, Sumerians, and all other cultures with recognizable animal depictions on walls or pottery show animals looking virtually identical to those of today. Mummified cats and Ibises of Egypt as well show no change.
If that's not enough, the oldest art known to man shows a depiction of a man with a modern lions' head, mane and everything. Cave paintings of France show aurochs (recently extinct bovids), horses, and megaloceros (a giant elk that recently went extinct). Other cave paintings show things like lions, rhinos, horses, ibex, etc...

Dan:

This study seemed to indicate that rapid change can happen when animals are domesticated, I saw a show on it once a few years back but here is the wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

Yep. Oddly, it's been pointed out before as 'evidence' for rapid evolution of animals after the Flood. Thing is, it's faulty, as Artificial breeding happens a lot faster than natural breeding.

Actually, regardless of what Ive says, there are biologists who are YEC

That's nice. Like I said, from what I have learned and researched on my own, I have yet to find a YEC idea on this topic that is even remotely valid scientifically. There are scientists who believe in all sorts of things...I believe that their voices should be heard, but I don't give them much credit if their beliefs aren't supported by their "evidence." As stated previously, if you can find papers or research done to support YEC speciation, great. I'd love to read them.

Also, when you say "earliest" records, I am curious as to who was keeping these records?

I believe the 'records" in question involve things like ancient cave drawings and other pre-biblical times artwork.

This study seemed to indicate that rapid change can happen when animals are domesticated

That is the key here. Domestication is not natural, and through domestication you can cause physical changes in size and coloration rather easily and quickly. Certain dramatic near-extinction events can have similarly fast changes in a population. But YEC doesn't use domestication as a reason, because it doesn't fit into the theory of speciation.

And even if one were to inquire about domestication being evidence for YEC, I pose the question: Through what artificial selection techniques would you turn a generic cat into a house cat? A tiger? A lion? A black panther? (Answer: You can't)

EDIT: After reading into that example specifically, it should also be pointed out that the silver fox experiment was more to alter wild fox's behavioral traits, not the physical ones. Silver foxes are a natural animal, the Russians just created a domesticated population of them.

That is the key here. Domestication is not natural, and through domestication you can cause physical changes in size and coloration rather easily and quickly. Certain dramatic near-extinction events can have similarly fast changes in a population. But YEC doesn't use domestication as a reason, because it doesn't fit into the theory of speciation.

And even if one were to inquire about domestication being evidence for YEC, I pose the question: Through what artificial selection techniques would you turn a generic cat into a house cat? A tiger? A lion? A black panther? (Answer: You can't)

EDIT: After reading into that example specifically, it should also be pointed out that the silver fox experiment was more to alter wild fox's behavioral traits, not the physical ones. Silver foxes are a natural animal, the Russians just created a domesticated population of them.

Meh I am O.E.C

Neither did the foxes rapidly diversify into hundreds of species, as YECs would expect. Even though that was not the point of the experiment, rapid speciation should act extremely quickly in domestic animals, faster than in the wild. Animals ought to have diversified naturally within a few hundred years, some YECs say. By their lines of reasoning, Great Danes, Terriers, Spaniels, etc, would arise within a few decades, as artificial selection works much quicker than natural selection.
A YEC I know (who claims to have studied microevolution in-depth) argued that huge changes could arise within "kinds" within extremely short time periods. As support, he sent a link describing rapid evolution of snails. It wasn't the best example, as the snails lived in small populations, they breed quicker, and were the result of a human experiment.
According to YECs, lions, tigers, and jaguars (etc) evolved from an original cat "kind" on the ark. Here lies a problem, as several fossil lions have been found in pleistocene layers, and to say they evolved both prior and after the Flood says two things:
1) cats must have diversified extremely rapidly before any post-Flood conditions to pressure them to do so, and in even less time.
2) either the lions survived the Flood, or post-Flood cat "kinds" became lions through a ridiculous amount of convergent evolution in the narrowest time possible.

Even if they claim these lions lived after the flood, it is still a problem, as it means even hundreds more of these felines existed in post-Flood conditions. The ice age supposedly spanned a few hundred years after the deluge. That's an incredibly short time window to get speciation to the level of hundreds and thousands of cats, all going extinct quite rapidly, with no reason to at all.

Of all people I've debated, nobody's told me where the Flood layers end and when the ice age layers appear. Does it end at the Cretaceous, Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, or Pleistocene?

I want to be careful not to be backed into defending a position I don't hold. If you notice I didn't promote any specific position. Only that of issues between YEC and OEC. Not between secular and creationists.

The AIG folks do have some commentary on this stuff. But again, I am not posting this as an endorsement or agreement. But you are welcome to read through their resources for yourself. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... speciation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... ion-theory

I believe the 'records" in question involve things like ancient cave drawings and other pre-biblical times artwork

Since when was artwork scientific? Cave drawings all over the world also include dragon like creatures. That is a two-edged sword my friend.

Jlay:

The AIG folks do have some commentary on this stuff. But again, I am not posting this as an endorsement or agreement. But you are welcome to read through their resources for yourself. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... speciation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... ion-theory

I've looked through this before.. their view of 'kind' is all muddled. At one article they would be arguing for the special design of pandas, and how it speaks for intelligent design, and in another article they would say pandas are part of the bear 'kind', and thus evolved their traits after the Flood. The things they will do to get enough animals aboard the ark is ridiculous.
Here's something else:

Evolutionists are often asked what they mean by “species,” and creationists are often asked what they mean by “kind.” Creationists would like to define “kind” in terms of interbreeding, since the Bible describes different living things as “multiplying after kind,”

(http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ecies-kind)
But the red kite and black kite are different kinds, and are shown to interbreed... As well as the sheep and goats. AiG tries too hard in fitting modern science into the Bible to make it fit their particular (and less supported) viewpoint, while the scientific bits that are relevant to us today were meant to be written so as to allow people of all literary levels could understand it. It is just too obvious that in Hebrew, 'min' refers to anything that naturally interbreeds in nature, or any recognizable distinction - that is to say, species. There are too many lengths they go in order to ensure that their faulty interpretation is right.

Since when was artwork scientific? Cave drawings all over the world also include dragon like creatures. That is a two-edged sword my friend.

Regardless, it shows no change in post-flood organisms. The artistry accurately depicts several other animals.

Let's examine this supposed issue of dragons. Most of the dragons in Chinese mythology are totally unlike dinosaurs. They tend to resemble artistic depictions of lizards, or legged serpents. Same with other depictions of strange creatures in the world. YECs frequently jump on any strange creature portrayed in ancient art and declare "DINOSAUR!" when it really is just an artistic depiction of a long-necked tiger or a legged snake, or an eagle. Europeans have depictions of dragons, but most come from Biblical references to Satan. Some play vital roles in mythological stories, like in king Arthur tales. Mythology is ripe with symbolism.
On the other hand, it's implausible to say in all these thousands of years man has been on Earth, nobody would encounter fossilized remnants of dinosaurs or any megafauna and try to artistically depict them. I believe mankind has been on this earth roughly 50,000 years, so it's obviously inevitable.
Problems like this is only what can come when YECism tries taking an archaic interpretation of the Bible, then try fitting science around it, rather than see how science would shape our interpretation, due to what is clearly seen in nature.

Y.E. creationists, misuses the term min (kind). Young Earth creationists say that it means ancestral types of creatures that no longer exist. An example would be some min of cat that contained all of the genetic information to evolve into domestic cats, lions, tigers, cheetahs, Leopards (all which when crossbred, produce sterile young) saber toothed cats, etc. But this is not how the Bible itself defines the term. In Lev. 11:13-30 and Deut. 14:12-18 min in the singular is used to define genus and species not something more encompassing. For example, in these passages look how many owls there are, or how many hawk type birds are mentioned. These are all categoriesed as separate min. The young-earth view requires min mean the family or higher level and that evolution quickly produce the separate genus and species.

Calum,
As you allude to, one could also say the definition of species is muddled. And of course it is muddled. Take for example the Kite. OK, they can interbreed. But speciation is often considered to require a loss of such ability. So, you say, "But the red kite and black kite are different kinds, and are shown to interbreed... As well as the sheep and goats." And I would say, "So what?" Not sure exactly what you are trying to prove with this example.

Regardless of OEC or YEC, or secular we see examples in nature that puzzle us. For example the coelacanth, once thought to be extinct for 65 million years, suddenly appear, and appear unchanged from the so called prehistoric fossils. No big deal.

The research I did on the Kite seems to be muddled and not settled. Well, other than the fact that they are both Kites.

Let's examine this supposed issue of dragons.

You can run off on this tangent if you like, but its a red herring. My point is not to try and say that dragon drawings are proof that man and dino lived together. That is your preconceived bias kicking in. My point is that its a two-edged sword, in that you can't take one example of a cave drawing and claim it as evidence, and then dismiss others. You can't draw biological conclusions from cave art.

Problems like this is only what can come when YECism tries taking an archaic interpretation of the Bible, then try fitting science around it, rather than see how science would shape our interpretation, due to what is clearly seen in nature.

Chronoligical snobbery. Problems also arise when one bows their knee to worldly wisdom. Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Can you give me any scientific defense of this? OEC's often make the mistake of bragging about how much better they fit with secular science. That is also a two-edged sword. Does a OEC position better fit with a dead man turning water to wine and raising from the dead? Please do tell.

Regarding cats in the pleistocene layers. The problem there of course is that YECers are not going to agree with your presuppositions or dating methods that are ingrained in the very term pleistocene.

As you allude to, one could also say the definition of species is muddled. And of course it is muddled. Take for example the Kite. OK, they can interbreed. But speciation is often considered to require a loss of such ability. So, you say, "But the red kite and black kite are different kinds, and are shown to interbreed... As well as the sheep and goats." And I would say, "So what?" Not sure exactly what you are trying to prove with this example.

My point was that the standard YEC definition of 'kind' was wrong, and that there would undoubtedly be many many more kinds than estimated by YECs besides, their interpretation of 'kind' is obviously not supportable.

Regardless of OEC or YEC, or secular we see examples in nature that puzzle us. For example the coelacanth, once thought to be extinct for 65 million years, suddenly appear, and appear unchanged from the so called prehistoric fossils. No big deal.

Of course it's no big deal - there's no evolutionary law preventing animals from remaining relatively stagnant, if they occupy the same ecological niche for a long period of time. Examples like the tree boa, tuatara, or opossum as well.

The research I did on the Kite seems to be muddled and not settled. Well, other than the fact that they are both Kites.

But different 'kinds'

Let's examine this supposed issue of dragons.

You can run off on this tangent if you like, but its a red herring. My point is not to try and say that dragon drawings are proof that man and dino lived together. That is your preconceived bias kicking in. My point is that its a two-edged sword, in that you can't take one example of a cave drawing and claim it as evidence, and then dismiss others. You can't draw biological conclusions from cave art.

I don't know of any cave drawings of dinosaurs chasing irish elk around, but if there were I'd be happy to examine it.
As I've said before, most of these artistic depictions turn out to be artistically styled renderings of modern animals.
If there's an extremely old cave painting in France or Spain that depicts modern animals with relatively little or no change at all, it's worth a look at. It provides viable evidence that the YEC notion that animals evolved into drastically different forms in order to occupy all sorts of ecological niches didn't happen, and thus this 'change' is pushed even farther back.

Problems like this is only what can come when YECism tries taking an archaic interpretation of the Bible, then try fitting science around it, rather than see how science would shape our interpretation, due to what is clearly seen in nature.

Chronoligical snobbery. Problems also arise when one bows their knee to worldly wisdom.

We old-earthers do not bow our knees to any kind of worldly wisdom. It's plain knowledge that tells us the Earth goes around the sun, the moon goes around the earth, gravity is something real and the Earth is old. Now we look at Genesis and say 'does it allow for this interpretation?' indeed, it does so, and seems to fit much better into what science says than YECs preconcieved interpretation that simply must be true.

Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Yup.

Can you give me any scientific defense of this?

No, as it was supernatural and not a natural event.

OEC's often make the mistake of bragging about how much better they fit with secular science.

Noooo....
we don't brag about how much better we fit with secular science. It's just that some things speak so obviously for an old earth that YECs have to go out of their way to try to prove how they're wrong, and show how things are NOT clearly seen in Nature.

That is also a two-edged sword. Does a OEC position better fit with a dead man turning water to wine and raising from the dead? Please do tell.

OEC/YEC has nothing to do with Jesus' miracles.

Regarding cats in the pleistocene layers. The problem there of course is that YECers are not going to agree with your presuppositions or dating methods that are ingrained in the very term pleistocene.

They're not presuppositions. And besides, there is a layer that defines pleistocene. It has many modern fauna in it, and even homo sapiens. If ALL layers were layed down during the Flood, we have a very big problem with faunal sorting. Ecological sorting does not explain it, as many things individual to certain layers are found all over the world. Hydrological sorting doesn't explain it either, as animals of all shapes and sizes are found throughout the fossil record.

No, as it was supernatural and not a natural event.

Then you are a wacco religious nut, just like me. Congratulations on your worldview fitting better with modern science.

But different 'kinds'

Again, so what?

animals evolved into drastically different forms in order to occupy all sorts of ecological niches didn't happen, and thus this 'change' is pushed even farther back.

Wait, you just said,

there's no evolutionary law preventing animals from remaining relatively stagnant, if they occupy the same ecological niche for a long period of time.

So today we see examples of stagnation, and we also see examples of rapid speciation where within generations the ability to breed seems to be lost. Ok??

It's plain knowledge that tells us the Earth goes around the sun, the moon goes around the earth, gravity is something real and the Earth is old.

prejudicial. You imply that YECers can't use plain knowledge. Which is a lie of course.

Noooo....
we don't brag about how much better we fit with secular science. It's just that some things speak so obviously for an old earth that YECs have to go out of their way to try to prove how they're wrong, and show how things are NOT clearly seen in Nature.

Oh don't get me wrong. I think there are problems with a lot of the positions in YEC. But when someone says, "clearly" seen, I think clearly is not so clear all the time as you make it out to be.

OEC/YEC has nothing to do with Jesus' miracles.

Oh, I agree. It was sarcasm.

They're not presuppositions.

ALl dating methods require assumptions that can not be proven.

If ALL layers were layed down during the Flood, we have a very big problem with faunal sorting.

I actually just addressed this in another recent thread. http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... on#p120190