<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Monday, June 07, 2010

Hard Truths for Theistic Evolutionists [1]

creationGod’s Character and the Doctrine of Inspiration

BioLogos is a website dedicated to promoting theistic evolution. Under the “Questions” page the curators summarize their position by writing, Theism is the belief in a God who cares for and interacts with the creation. Theistic Evolution, therefore, is the belief that evolution is the way by which God created life. On the webpage where the BioLogos Foundation outlines what they are about as a group, they write, We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. We also believe that evolution, properly understood, best describes God’s work of creation [emphasis mine].

Here we read a clear statement from the BioLogos Foundation affirming a devotion to the inspiration of Scriptures, and this is important to note, because the Bible specifically defines for us the word “inspiration.” In 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, Paul writes, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. The word translated in our English Bibles as “inspiration” is a Greek word meaning “God breathed.” Some English translations even render the word as “God breathed.” In other words, Paul is saying the Bible – the Scriptures – is a written, divine revelation directly from God.

Paul goes on to identify the effectual nature of Scripture. It is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Now, the constituency of BioLogos would argue Paul’s description of Scripture pertains only to moral issues of a spiritual nature. The daily issues a pastor will encounter when shepherding the Church of God. Hence, when the Bible addresses ethics, morals, and spiritual values of the Christian life, it is a reliable source of information. However, when the Bible addresses physical reality, areas of the world where modern day scientific theory attempts to assert itself as the dominant authority, it isn’t particularly useful and in some instances may be mistaken.

But, if the whole of scripture is, as Paul describes, God-breathed, then such would imply the whole of Scripture is invested with a uniquely divine authority. The Scriptures, being breathed out by God, would certainly bear the qualities of God’s attributes. The most important of those attributes as it pertains to Scripture is God’s truthfulness. In God dwells all truth.

The Scriptures themselves repeatedly declare God is the source of all truth. For example, Deuteronomy 32:4 says God is called A God of truth. Psalm 31:5 states the same thing about God. Through out the Scriptures, the Word of God is called God’s truth and to obey God’s Word or to keep His law is equated to obeying the Truth. See for example Psalm 86:11 which says, Teach me Your way, O LORD; I will walk in Your truth; Unite my heart to fear Your name. Also Psalm 119 describes God’s Word as truth and obedience to His Word by believers as “walking in truth” five times in verses 30, 43, 142, and 160.

The NT states the same thing about God’s Word. Jesus, in John’s gospel, calls Himself the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). When He prays to the Father, Jesus says God’s Word is truth and that truth sanctifies the believer (John 17:17, 19). The Holy Spirit is called a “Spirit of Truth” in John 14:17 and 15:26. It is also important to note that “walking in light” is seen as walking in truth and is contrasted to “walking in darkness” which is described as error or deception.

Several more passages in both the OT and the NT could be considered, but it is clear the Bible identifies God and His Word as being “the truth,” and it is “truth” identified with God’s character.

So. When God breathes out His revelation it will always be truthful in all the matters it addresses. This can be the only conclusion one can draw from Scripture if we take it seriously as a divinely given document. If the Bible is God-breathed and, as its own pages proclaim, it is truthful, then it has to be without error because being by its very nature God-breathed, the Bible is invested with God’s character which is truth.

Returning back to Paul’s words to Timothy, the apostles states “all Scripture” is God-breathed. “All” means more that just those things only pertaining to spiritual or moral values. This means God’s Word is without error when it speaks to physical reality and historical matters. There isn’t a dichotomy within Scripture where some is God-breathed and other portions are not. In other words, God’s Word cannot be God-breathed yet filled with error or deception at the same time. It cannot be both inspired yet errant. If Scripture is inspired or God-breathed it has to be inerrant and infallible in all that it addresses both in spiritual matters and physical and historical matters. The presence of any error in the Bible with regards to physical matters (read “science”) and historical matters (read “origins”) would impugn God’s character with either intentional deception or making a series of mistakes. If either one of those scenarios are true the Bible could no longer be confidently believed as trustworthy or said to be infallible.

The drafters of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy recognized inspiration and inerrancy are wed together as one in the historic orthodox doctrine of Scripture. These two doctrines stand or fall together and cannot be separated. Under article 11, the drafters state,

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.

and under article 12 they write,

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Regrettably, the folks at BioLogos reject the unity of inspiration and inerrancy in the one orthodox doctrine of Scripture. Even though they claim they, being theistic evolutionists, believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, they reject inerrancy. They are acknowledging an inspired, but errant Bible, especially when it addresses the subjects of our World’s creation and man’s origins. This is clearly seen in this blog article. The author argues that inerrancy is false and is a result of a misguided adherence to strict biblicism that only engenders poor and inferior judgments about science, history, and theology. The author, then, wants to help the church get the proper bearings in a world with out adherence to biblical inerrancy.

One has to wonder if the author recognizes how his position speaks against the character of God. That what he is saying is God breathed out a divine revelation that was inscripturated in the Bible but what God revealed was misleading, deceptive, or mistaken. Accusations anyone with a high view of God would be nervous to make. In a comment underneath the post, the author says the actual text of the Bible is marred by man’s sin, but that only tarnishes God’s ability to preserve the revelation He breathed out in the first place. (Not to mention the fact it demonstrates a gross ignorance of textual criticism).

If theistic evolutionists insist they believe in a divine, sovereign God and that the Bible is inspired, I would expect them to explain the numerous theological problems their position creates. The disconnect between an inspired, yet errant Bible and God’s character being just the first among many. In a handful of up-coming posts, my objective will be to highlight those problems and consider whether theistic evolution really reflects a high view of God, let alone a high view of Scripture.

For what I see so far from theistic evolutionists, particularly the people at BioLogos, is unbelief. A full out denial of Christian orthodoxy. In a manner of speaking, it is a form of stealth atheism.

Labels:

57 Comments:

Blogger steve said...

Sparks' article is a tacit admission that the creationist/evolutionist debate is not a hermeneutical question. Not a question of how we should interpret the Bible.

So all the business about how, if we just interpret Gen 1-11 in light of ANE literary conventions, we can harmonize Scripture with macroevolution, the Big Bang, &c., is just a smoke screen.

5:05 PM, June 07, 2010  
Blogger Mike Erich the Mad Theologian said...

I think one of the reasons for a low view of Scripture and inerrancy is a low view of truth. It is unfortunately common in modern times that people tend to take truth as whatever is convenient or whatever makes me feel good. They then see God as speaking the same way to accommodate Himself to people's ignorance. This is dragging God down to our level.

5:54 PM, June 07, 2010  
Blogger David said...

So what if it turns out that there was no global flood? Does this mean that the Bible is in error?

6:49 PM, June 07, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Yep. But there is no worry about that happening because there was a global flood.

7:12 PM, June 07, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Is there any conceivable evidence of any kind that would lead you to conclude that there was not a global flood? Oh, and when did this flood occur?

7:30 PM, June 07, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

No. There isn't any evidence. (Evidence has to be interpreted by the way). Because I believe God's revelation. Like I stated in the main post: God is truth and does not lie. So either you believe He did, or was mistaken, or left His God breathed revelation to be corrupted. Which one is your position?

And the flood happened about 1600 years or so after the creation.

7:37 PM, June 07, 2010  
Blogger Blank Slate said...

Great Post!

Once again it is about whether we believe the Bible in all aspects... it seems to be as simple as that.

Keep up the good work, and thanks for good thinking.

Terry

8:16 PM, June 07, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Please interpret the taxonomic sorting observed in the fossil record.

So, when was the creation?

8:17 PM, June 07, 2010  
Blogger Mike Erich the Mad Theologian said...

The taxonomic sorting of fossils is based on evolutionary assumptions. The fossils are dated by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils and both by how they fit the theory. If the fossils are found in the wrong order, which they are, it is assumed they were put that way by a thrust fault (even if there is little or no evidence for one). If periods are missing it is called a "deceptive discontinuity" even if it looks just like a regular bedding plane. Some general correspondence would result from the ability of animals to escape a universal flood. But the ordering is largely based on the assumptions of the theory.

8:52 PM, June 07, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"The taxonomic sorting of fossils is based on evolutionary assumptions."

This is simply wrong. The taxonomic sorting of fossils was first observed in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The observations were made over 50 years before Darwin's Origin, and almost all of those scientists making these observations were confirmed creationists. At the time, their conclusion was that God had made several successive and separate creations.

"The fossils are dated by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils and both by how they fit the theory."

Wrong again. Rock layers were originally given relative dates by the principle of superposition, a principle that is over 200 years old and that pre-dates Darwin's Origin by 50 years. Currently, rock layers can be independently dated by radiometric dating.

How radiometric dating works from a Christian perspective.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Bedtime. More comments tomorrow.

9:11 PM, June 07, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“Some general correspondence would result from the ability of animals to escape a universal flood.”

Is this an example of the “dinos run slow and are buried first and mammals run fast and are buried last” argument? Obviously, not every single species in a large taxonomic group is going to be faster/slower than every single species in another large taxonomic group.

But let’s take speed out of the equation by looking at plants.

Angiosperm plant species account for about 90% of all plant species on earth. Angiosperms grow in essentially every location on earth where plants grow, be it rainforest, grasslands, desert or tundra. That is, these species have a global distribution.

Now, consider the geological layers labeled Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian and Triassic. The layers can be identified by superposition, and they are all older than any of the layers labeled Jurassic or younger, and again, this can be determined by superposition. No need to use fossils to identify these layers and/or to determine relative age.

Cambrian through Triassic layers are found all over the earth. Collectively, these layers are many miles deep and they cover millions and millions of square miles of the earth’s surface. Collectively, these layers contain millions and millions of plant fossils. And yet, to date, in all of these layers of several miles in depth and covering millions of square miles and containing millions of plants fossils…not a single angiosperm fossil has ever been found.

If there was a global flood, why are there no angiosperm fossils in the Cambrian through Triassic layers?

6:39 AM, June 08, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Dave,
I can't get involved with discussions today because I am busy at work until late this afternoon.

But just so that we know, you're an expert in geology how exactly? Have you actually study the subject and done field research, or are you pulling your info from favored authorities?

6:43 AM, June 08, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"Have you actually study the subject and done field research, or are you pulling your info from favored authorities?"

I don't have to pull anything from any "authorities", although obviously this saves a lot of time and effort. Everything that I've described I can see for myself (and, yes, I've done a bit of fossil hunting and field geology in my day).

Do you doubt the accuracy of anything that I've said? If so, why? Provide specific evidence that shows that I'm wrong about the distribution of angiosperm fossils. Why do you think that 99% of CHRISTIAN geologists reject the notion of a global flood?

7:09 AM, June 08, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Do you doubt the accuracy of anything that I've said?

No. I just don't accept the long ages, global flood rejecting interpretations.

Why do you think that 99% of CHRISTIAN geologists reject the notion of a global flood?

I don't believe 99% of Christian geologists reject a global flood, first off. Second, of those who do, I would be curious to talk with them about their commitment to scripture. These are Bible believing Christian geologists? Can you name a few? Websites? Where do they go to Church?

7:27 AM, June 08, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"No. I just don't accept the long ages, global flood rejecting interpretations."

Fine. Then explain how the evidence provided by angiosperm fossils is consistent with the YEC and global flood hypotheses.

"I don't believe 99% of Christian geologists reject a global flood, first off."

Well, that's the reality. There are tens of thousands of BS, MS and PhD geologists, and a substantial proportion of these are Christians. I'm pretty certain that almost every single one thinks the earth is immensely old, because it's very difficult to do good geology if you think otherwise. So, that's thousands of OEC Christian geologists. By contrast, you can literally count all of the PhD YEC geologists on one hand.

If you wish to meet OEC Chrstian geologists, just visit any university geology department or look at any of the websites of the thousands of practicing geologists around the world. This should be pretty easy to do.

For starters, the link I provided to "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" includes an email address for an OEC Christian geologist.

Instead of worry about what church they attend, how about just looking at the evidence?

7:48 AM, June 08, 2010  
Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Fred Butler: "For what I see so far from theistic evolutionists, particularly the people at BioLogos, is unbelief. A full out denial of Christian orthodoxy. In a manner of speaking, it is a form of stealth atheism."

That's an irenic way of stating the matter.

:-)

Good post, Fred. Very good post. Thanks for taking the time to challenge the theistic evolutionists. People keep on claiming that it's not a first-order, salvific doctrine, so just let it go.

They also say the same thing about folks who believe and propagate an errant Bible. They say that errancy or inerrancy isn't a first-order, salvific doctrine, so just let it go.

Same thing about egalitarianism. Folks want priestesses and pastorettes, let 'em. Women's ordination is another issue that's not a first-order, salvific doctrine, so just let it go.

Have you ever heard what I'm talking about Fred?

And in my observations, pastors and churches that keep on letting doctrinal things slide because they've categorized them as second-order doctrines, well, they're on the down-grade to individual and corporate damage because these second-order doctrines affect the first-order doctrines!!

What do you think?

12:48 PM, June 08, 2010  
Blogger Mike Erich the Mad Theologian said...

The idea that the geologic column can be produced simply by the law of superposition is fallacious. The is only a limited amount of strata visible at any one location and of course many lack relevant index fossils. Also as I pointed out many are out of order and are assumed to have some mechanism to explain them even if there is no or little evidence for it. As for angiosperms any fossils that had them in it would automatically be classified as Jurassic or later. Also evolutionary thinking was around long before Darwin, he simply provided a better mechanism.

5:27 PM, June 08, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“The idea that the geologic column can be produced simply by the law of superposition is fallacious. The is only a limited amount of strata visible at any one location and of course many lack relevant index fossils.”

You don’t need index fossils to figure out what strata you are observing at a given location. By looking for overlapping strata at different locations, you can build a complete geologic column even if there are only a limited number of layers at a given locality. This was first done in Britain in the early 1800s by individuals with little or no interest in the early evolutionary ideas of the same time period.

Further, in North Dakota, the geologic column is almost complete in just one location in that the strata cover the Cambrian through the Tertiary.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/#column

(Glenn Morton, the author of the linked article was once a YECist. The evidence convinced him that YEC was wrong.)

“Also as I pointed out many are out of order and are assumed to have some mechanism to explain them even if there is no or little evidence for it.”

Examples? Any evidence to support this claim? Any cases where angiosperm fossils were found “in the wrong order”?

“As for angiosperms any fossils that had them in it would automatically be classified as Jurassic or later.”

Nonsense. You’re totally ignoring how geology is actually done. You’re ignoring superposition and radiometric dating and other methods used to determine the proper age of a given layer. The geologic strata are simply too well mapped and too well understood for geologists and paleontologists to do what you’re claiming that they would do. Don’t you think that if angiosperm fossils existed in the Cambrian to Triassic layers, the YEC geologists would be jumping up and down and screaming about it?

“Also evolutionary thinking was around long before Darwin, he simply provided a better mechanism.”

Yes, but the geologists of the early 1800s were creationists who rejected the early evolutionary ideas. Look it up. These folks had no interest in supporting evolution in any way.

6:23 PM, June 08, 2010  
Blogger Mike Erich the Mad Theologian said...

Rocks do not come with labels nor are all the rocks which are claimed from the same period the same. As you have admitted you know of only one place those rocks that are claimed to be from the whole column are found in order. There are places as I stated where they are clearly out of order and something is assumed to explain their being that way. The whole structure is a complex structure of assumptions and dubious deductions. As for radiometric dating sedimentary rocks being deposited are seldom closed systems (necessary for radiometric dating) and whether a particular sample is seen as a closed system based on whether it fits the accepted date for strata involved. There are a number of people before Darwin with evolutionary ideas though they may not have gone as far as Darwin George-Louis Buffon 1707-1788, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck 1744-1829, Charles Lyell 1797-1875. Who are these "creationists" who originated the geological column.

8:17 PM, June 08, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

General information links:

Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column

The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?

Geology Questions and Answers


Regarding angiosperms (flowering plants):

Pollen has been found in Cambrian and Precambrain rocks.

Ancient Amber Discovery Contradicts Geologic Timescale

"Interestingly, pollen grains, which only come from flowering plants, were found embedded in the Hakatai Shale, which are some of the lowermost Grand Canyon rocks. Though scientists committed to the story of flowering plant evolution tried to pass these grains off as “contaminants,” the research was repeated and had the same results―pollen grains embedded in the lowest rocks.*

If Bray’s amber was formed from true flowering plant sap as the evidence suggests, and if there really is pollen in the Hakatai Shale, then angiosperms have existed from the world’s beginning, even as Genesis records.[Genesis 1:11-13] The presence of larger angiosperm plant parts in upper rock layers does not reflect an evolutionary time of emergence. Rather, it likely reflects either the time of deposition for different environments during the year-long Flood, violent floodwater sorting effects, or perhaps a combination of these factors.
"

*Howe, G. F. et al. 1988. Creation Research Society Studies on Precambrian Pollen, Part III: A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 24 (4): 173.

BTW, the pollen grains found in the rocks at the very bottom of the Grand Canyon were of extinct species—which would rule out entirely the possibility of contamination by present day forms.

Even evolutionary scientists have reported the presence of gymnosperm (i.e. conifer) pollen as far down as the Cambrian period ("Evidence of Vascular Plants in the Cambrian", S. Leclercq, Evolution Vol. 10, Jun. 1956, pp. 109 - 114; "Evolution of the Psilophyte Paleoflora", Daniel I. Axelrod, Evolution, Vol. 13, Jun. 1959, pp. 264 - 275). Previously, gymnosperms were not considered to have developed until the Devonian.

5:08 AM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

This link was messed up, let me try it again:

Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column

5:12 AM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

And another thing: I included the link to Woodmorappe's article because the link from the talkorigins.org article is broken.

That's what I get for doing things in a hurry.

5:19 AM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

For more fun, here's Creation wiki's response to Talk Origin's attempt to explain away pollen in Precambrain rocks:

Recent pollen has been found in old rocks

I am up so early because the dog woke me up to let him outside. I'm going back to bed now. :)

5:28 AM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

... explain how the evidence provided by angiosperm fossils is consistent with the YEC and global flood hypotheses.

Escovado's links do that.

"I don't believe 99% of Christian geologists reject a global flood, first off."

Well, that's the reality. There are tens of thousands of BS, MS and PhD geologists, and a substantial proportion of these are Christians.


I think you radically overstate you claim. 99% a reality? Be that as it may, you still haven't answered my question. Are they Bible believing Christians? Just so that we are clear, by Bible believing Christian, I am meaning one who believes scripture is an authoritative revelation from God and is sufficient to speak to us about reality and spirituality.

If I recall in a previous comment from a few weeks ago under another post, you think the Bible is nothing but a Bronze aged book, which tells me you don't care for it to begin with. That of course relates to the point of this post in regards to theistic evolutionists attempting to accept inspiration but reject inerrancy and infallibility at the same time, which is ultimately impossible to do and still be a follower of Christ.

You mention Glenn Morton, but he is more of a bitter, anti-creationist who has it in for YEC for one reason or another. I am not even sure of his church background.

I'm pretty certain that almost every single one thinks the earth is immensely old, because it's very difficult to do good geology if you think otherwise.

Why does believing the earth is immensely old have anything to do with "good geology?" How would such convictions about the earth even matter?

in another comment you write,

The taxonomic sorting of fossils was first observed in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The observations were made over 50 years before Darwin's Origin, and almost all of those scientists making these observations were confirmed creationists.

This is certainly true, but they weren't attempting to sort the record in order to demonstrate uniformitarian geology or create some evolutionary history of the earth. Their attempt was more along the lines of correlating geological data in the region of Europe.

At the time, their conclusion was that God had made several successive and separate creations.

Only one person I could locate made this claim, Georges Cuvier. Pretty much everyone else held to one creation, a flood, and then post-flood life.

Rock layers were originally given relative dates by the principle of superposition, a principle that is over 200 years old and that pre-dates Darwin's Origin by 50 years.

At first, but the Law of Faunal Succession replaced the principle of superposition in the early 19th century and it is based around the idea that the relative age of the rocks can be determined from their fossil content.

6:45 AM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Mike,

“Rocks do not come with labels nor are all the rocks which are claimed from the same period the same. As you have admitted you know of only one place those rocks that are claimed to be from the whole column are found in order.”

Please take a little time to learn some geology from real geologists.

“There are places as I stated where they are clearly out of order and something is assumed to explain their being that way.”

Again I would ask for examples and evidence to support this statement.

“As for radiometric dating sedimentary rocks being deposited are seldom closed systems (necessary for radiometric dating) and whether a particular sample is seen as a closed system based on whether it fits the accepted date for strata involved.”

Please read follow the link provided in a previous comment (Radiometric Dating – A Christian Perspective)

"Who are these "creationists" who originated the geological column."

Adam Sedgwick is the first name that comes to mind. And William Smith and Georges Cuvier. Also, Lyell disagreed with Darwin for many years, and certainly at the time he was writing his Principles of Geology, he was a creationist.

6:54 AM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Escovado,

Pollen? That’s it?

Pollen is microscopic and ubiquitous in the air. Yes, contamination is very likely.
Where are the leaf, stem, trunk and root fossils? If the pollen came from angiosperms present during the deposit of the Cambrian layers, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t fined macroscopic plant material as well.

One of the links that you posted led to another link to a posting by Glenn Morton.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199709/0101.html

Apparently, even within the YEC world, there is controversy over this “discovery”.

I believe that this is one of the key sentences:

“Add to this the picture the many thousands of macerations of lower Paleozoic and Precambrian rocks which have been carried out in scores of laboratories around the world which have not supported Burdick's claims.”

Exactly. We have ONE claim from ONE site. Where are all the pollen grains in all of the other rocks from the Cambrian through Triassic layers? If YEC is correct, practically every sedimentary layer from the Cambrian to the Triassic with terrestrial or freshwater fossils should contain angio pollen. But they don’t. Apparently, pollen fossils are only found in the Grand Canyon.

In particular, where are the angiosperm pollen fossils that should be in the massive, massive Carboniferous plant-based coal deposits? Remember, angiosperms have a world-wide distribution and angiosperm pollen is ubiquitous in the air. Where are the angio leaves, flowers, roots, etc., in the Carboniferous deposits in which are jam-packed with macroscopic lycopod and conifer fossils? There are NO “sorting mechanisms” which would fill the Carboniferous layers with lycopods and conifers but exclude angiosperm material.

Also, I notice that the dates for these pollen “discoveries” are rather old by scientific research standards. The first “discovery” was reported in 1971, and there appears to have been little “research” on the matter since. Consider the extraordinary significance of the claim that there is angio pollen in Cambrian rocks. If I thought that there was angio pollen in Cambrian rocks, I’d be sampling the Grand Canyon rocks every day, and reporting my results every day for the last 40 years. I’d do this again and again until there was no doubt at all about the matter. But this isn’t happening. Maybe the YECers having a little bit of difficulty in repeating their discovery, yes? The discovery of angio pollen in Cambrian rocks should be ridiculously easy to replicate at sites around the world, and the key to scientific acceptance of extraordinary claims is replication of results. Replication, replication, replication. But replication hasn’t happened. Wonder why not?

Finally, if you thought that you found pollen in the Cambrian rocks in the Grand Canyon, then you might erect a working hypothesis that angios existed at the time the Cambrian layers were deposited. But now you have to test your hypothesis, you have to make predictions about what you’d find at other sites and in other geological layers if your hypothesis is accurate. And the hypothesis that angios existed at the time the Cambrain rocks were formed flunks every single additional test one can think of. In countless ways, this hypothesis is contradicted by the observations. Conclusion? The pollen was not deposited when the rocks were originally formed.

6:55 AM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Fred,

Have to run. Get back to you later.

6:56 AM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger David said...

More about plants from a Christian.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2008/PSCF9-08Duff.pdf

7:07 AM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

David,

Pollen, that’s it?

Where there is pollen, there are flowering plants. The authors of the Creation Research Society Quarterly papers resampled and resampled making sure there was no contamination, and they still found pollen. That’s called replication. Why should the contributors to the series in the CRSQ continue replicating their own work over and over again? That’s a complete waste of time and effort. Since pollen is automatically assumed to be caused by contamination, it comes as no surprise that no one is looking for it. Do you know if evolutionists have even attempted to replicate their work? I doubt it.

The typical evolutionary response to out-of-place fossils: come up with some secondary explanation and presto, the problem goes away. That illustrates the big fallacy regarding the alleged falsifiability of evolution when they trot out the Precambrian rabbit argument. Even if a rabbit was found in the Precambrian, secondary explanations would be introduced to put the rabbit back in its place, but I digress.

Now, the article you posted, Flood Geology’s Abominable Mystery attacks the one-flood-in-one-year-made-the-entire-geologic-column model. That is a model of which I don’t agree with myself, so I am not going to defend it. I’m leaning more towards the idea of there being three catastrophic periods in earth history: the global flood of Noah, the tower of Babel and the days of Peleg. This article, The Bible and the Geologic Column, gives a thumbnail sketch of this model. I’ll contact Barry Setterfield about his thoughts on our subject.

10:38 AM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I would add to Escovado's last comment and say that regional, post-flood catastrophes could have taken place with volcanic eruptions and other similar events. So I don't necessarily adhere to a one year only flood geology either. When I heard Steve Austin recently, he suggested such a model in his talk.

Where my understanding differs from the average OEC is that geological processes don't take millions of years to formulate, but could happen rapidly over a short period of time.

11:01 AM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger Mike Erich the Mad Theologian said...

I would like to thank Escovado for supplying some of my ignorances (it is hard do research in the middle of a discussion). But that Lyell was a creationist just because he did not fully agree with Darwin does not hold up. Lyell's concept of uniformitarianism (which is a philosophical presumption not result of observation) excludes the idea of God's intervention in nature. I am forced to concede upon research that there were later people involved who were creationists but they were functioning in an already evolutionary mindset put in place by those such as Lyell and conceded too much to it. This is a good arguement against trying to compromise on the issues involved.

11:49 AM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Been a long day. I'll see about a reply tomorrow.

7:16 PM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

David,

No hurry. I won't be able to get back to this thread for a while anyway.

8:44 PM, June 09, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Mike,

Since you’ve looked up a few names, I assume that it’s clear to you now that the early geologists who developed the geologic column were almost always (if not always) NOT “evolutionists”; this is especially true of the Brits. Basically, the column concept was created after these folks noticed that certain strata appeared in the same order in different localities, and from this initial observation, they developed the concept of a geologic column. This was done at a time with the idea that species evolved was an unpopular minority view, especially in Britain. The concept was in no way a product of evolutionary thinking, it did not depend on evolutionary thinking, it was not done to test or support evolutionary thing, and the column can be created without any reference to evolution at all. In fact, Flood Geology also predicts that there will be a “geologic column”, that is, a series of layers ordered from oldest at the bottom to youngest at the top. (Uniformitarianism is NOT the same thing as evolution, and at the time Lyell wrote the Principles, he believed that species were fixed and immutable.)

7:45 AM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Escovado,
It should also be clear by now that the “pre-Cambrian pollen” story is bogus.

“Where there is pollen, there are flowering plants.”

So, where are the plants? Think about what happens when the flood waters rise (or when we get whichever catastrophe you chose to insert here). Plants can’t run and they can’t hide. Yes, some bits and bobs may break off, but generally speaking, the FIRST thing to be buried in the accumulating sediments would be the plants, including angiosperms. So, the oldest layers with macroscopic fossils, such as the Cambrian layers, should be absolutely chock-full of plant fossils. And yet, there are no macroscopic angio fossils until you get way, way up in the Cretaceous. Again, where are the leaves, flowers, stems and roots of the angios in the Cambrian to Triassic beds? This remains a clear and decisive disproof of YEC/Global Flood, and it’s based on literal mountains and mountains of fossil evidence.


“The authors of the Creation Research Society Quarterly papers resampled and resampled making sure there was no contamination, and they still found pollen. That’s called replication. “

From what I read in the “Part III” papers, Howe, et al, went to a single site in the Canyon, chipped a few rocks, took samples that were only inches (INCHES!) from the surface, ran home and never returned. One sampling trip to one location to sample from one type of rock. No samples were taken from limestone and sandstone, no return trips for more samples. This isn’t replication, this is one and done.

“Why should the contributors to the series in the CRSQ continue replicating their own work over and over again? That’s a complete waste of time and effort.”

No, it would not be a complete waste of time. Right now, no one believes them. But if they could repeat their observation under more rigorous testing conditions, if they found pollen again and again in multiple rock types, etc., then they would be world-famous as the guys who brought down old earth geology. I think the reason why they haven’t tried to do this is that they know, deep down in their hearts, that this claim is bogus. As it is, they can claim success for those who want to believe, and that’s all they were trying to do. It’s a case of don’t look, don’t have to retract. But this isn’t how science is done.

“Since pollen is automatically assumed to be caused by contamination, it comes as no surprise that no one is looking for it. Do you know if evolutionists have even attempted to replicate their work? I doubt it.”

As the “Flood Geology’s Abominable Mystery” article explains pre-Jurassic rocks “consistently exhibits no flowering plant pollen”. There’s your repeated and repeated replication, and there are the results that contradict Howe, et. al.

7:50 AM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“The typical evolutionary response to out-of-place fossils: come up with some secondary explanation and presto, the problem goes away.”


The pollen example was not dismissed with “some secondary explanation”. The pollen example was even dismissed by Art Chadwick, an honest YECer, who sampled the RIGHT way and reported the results in 1981. The pollen example was dismissed because the sampling was done within a few inches of the surface, because only shale was sampled (shale is prone to micro-fracture) and because these results have not been replicated, even at the Grand Canyon. The pollen example was dismissed because the pollen was a remarkably good match to the present flora; since YEC “theory” says that the pre-Flood climate was quite different and the post-Flood climate included wild climate fluctuations, it’s essentially impossible that the pre-Flood flora of the Canyon region would match the present-day flora. The pollen example was dismissed because there are no macroscopic amigo fossils in the Cambrian. The pollen example was dismissed, because no one has found any angio pollen anywhere else in any other rock layer from the Cambrian to the Triassic, despite the ubiquitous nature of pollen, despite the world-wide distribution of angios and despite a bazillion samples of rock examined over many decades. These are not just “secondary explanations” designed to magically make the problem go away.

The fundamental problem with YEC “geology” is revealed by this pollen incident. YECer grab onto the few odd (and often bogus) observations that support the position that they will hold onto regardless of the evidence, and they will ignore the massive, massive amounts of data that contradict the YEC scenario. As Fred said, no evidence will ever convince him that he’s wrong. This isn’t just “interpreting” the evidence in a particular way, this is ignoring the evidence. And this ain’t how you do science.
Your “Bible and the Geologic Column” article was of no help in this matter. Frankly, from what I read, this “multiple catastrophe” model was badly flawed in countless ways, but the important thing here is that it utterly fails to account for the distribution of angiosperm fossils, specially, the absence of these fossils in pre-Jurassic layers.

7:51 AM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Fred,

>Explain how the evidence provided by angiosperm fossils is consistent with the YEC and global flood hypotheses.

"Escovado's links do that."

Urr, no they don’t. If you have a particular explanation in mind, I’d be glad to deal with it.

“I think you radically overstate you claim. 99% a reality? “

Ok, make it 98%. If you don’t believe me, I wish you luck in compiling a long list of BS to PhD geologists who accept YEC/Global Flood.

“Be that as it may, you still haven't answered my question. Are they Bible believing Christians? Just so that we are clear, by Bible believing Christian, I am meaning one who believes scripture is an authoritative revelation from God and is sufficient to speak to us about reality and spirituality.”

I have no idea what, specifically, these Christian geologists believe. All I know is that there are thousands of old earth geologists who would call themselves Christians. Here’s a website where you could find some of their names, and maybe if you contacted them, they would tell you what they believed.

http://www.asa3.org/


“If I recall in a previous comment from a few weeks ago under another post, you think the Bible is nothing but a Bronze aged book, which tells me you don't care for it to begin with. “

No, I don’t care for these myths today, but there was a time when I did. But examination of the evidence made it obvious that things like a global flood were myths.

"That of course relates to the point of this post in regards to theistic evolutionists attempting to accept inspiration but reject inerrancy and infallibility at the same time, which is ultimately impossible to do and still be a follower of Christ."

So, if someone rejects the Global Flood, they can’t be a follower of Christ? When did God die and leave you in charge of deciding who is a True ChristianTM and who isn’t? I happen to know many “old earth, non-Flood Christians”, and

I think that your label of “stealth atheist” for OECers is frankly repulsive. Trust me, these folks are decidedly NOT atheists of any kind. Instead, they’ve simply come to understand the reality that the Global Flood never happened.

Once you understand that a global flood didn’t happen, you have two choices.

Choice 1: If you conclude that the writers of the Bible believed that a global flood occurred, if you conclude that the truth of the Bible depends on a global flood occurring, if you believe that the Bible must be “inerrant” or though whole thing collapses, then you have to reject the Bible as false and just another work of humans.

Choice 2: Fred Butler is wrong, the Bible doesn’t teach a global flood and/or doesn’t have to be inerrant, and one can still believe the important bits about Jesus and still be a Christian. Those who take Choice 2 are simply trying to hold onto their faith in light of the realities of geology. Unless you have the knowledge of gods, I would suggest that you leave them alone.

8:22 AM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger David said...

“You mention Glenn Morton, but he is more of a bitter, anti-creationist who has it in for YEC for one reason or another.”

And now we go ad hominem. You dismiss his evidence based on his “bitterness”. Glen Morton was YEC. He changed his mind. Don’t you want to know why he changed his mind? Instead of dismissing him as “bitter”, why don’t you consider his arguments?

"Why does believing the earth is immensely old have anything to do with "good geology?" How would such convictions about the earth even matter?"

An accurate understanding of the actual geologic history of the earth is really, really useful for minor things like, oh, finding oil. That’s why universities teach their students old earth geology.

“This is certainly true, but they weren't attempting to sort the record in order to demonstrate uniformitarian geology or create some evolutionary history of the earth. Their attempt was more along the lines of correlating geological data in the region of Europe. “

Yes, and the fact that they weren’t trying to create some evolutionary history is a point in favor of my argument. Bottom line, they discovered that the fossils are, indeed, taxonomically sorted.


"At first, but the Law of Faunal Succession replaced the principle of superposition in the early 19th century and it is based around the idea that the relative age of the rocks can be determined from their fossil content."

It’s true that because different layers have different and unique faunal assemblages, that is, because fossils ARE taxonomically sorted, once you’ve established the relative age of the rock by superposition, you can use index fossils as a short cut to identifying layers. Thanks to the clear pattern created by taxonomic sorting, index fossils are useful for dating, but dating does NOT depend on “faunal succession”. Ultimately, the actual dating of a layer is derived by superposition and radiometric dating and not by the fossils, or at least, not be fossils alone.

8:25 AM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

YECer grab onto the few odd (and often bogus) observations that support the position that they will hold onto regardless of the evidence, and they will ignore the massive, massive amounts of data that contradict the YEC scenario.

Evolutionists do the same thing. For example, building an entire group of ape men out of a few pieces of bone and other skeletal fragments. They also ignore massive, massive, amounts of data that contradict their evolutionary scenarios, or at least find some fancy way to spin the evidence. So the charge of sloppiness goes both ways. The "Ida" fossil, archaeoraptor, the identification of dinosaur DNA in unfossilized tissue that is suppose to come from a 68 million year old T-rex, all being recent examples in the last decade.

As Fred said, no evidence will ever convince him that he’s wrong. This isn’t just “interpreting” the evidence in a particular way, this is ignoring the evidence. And this ain’t how you do science.

And there is good reason I say no evidence will ever convince me I am wrong. Two specifically: The first being I don't believe God lies. Secondly, the so-called "scientific" understanding of the evidence changes. There could be a very good explanation for angiosperm fossils that hasn't been considered yet. I mean, evolutionists are all the time bragging about the superiority of their method because it can adapt to changes and be falsifiable and all.

As to the first reason, if you take the Bible seriously as an infallible revelation from God, for which there IS good evidence, the only way to read Genesis 6-9 is that there was a global flood. To attempt to harmonize the absolute clear teaching of what God revealed happened to the world with what you think is a "problem" or "difficulty" with the evidence essentially calls God a liar. In one previous post, when pressed you seem to imply you hold to some view of theism, but later, in another comment, you criticize the Bible as being a Bronze aged book, which tells me you don't really have any use for it except to make some colorful flannel graph pictures. So which is it?

8:28 AM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

David,
Bitter skeptics who hate God's authority and reject Christ's salvation have been attempting to prove Choice #1 for thousands of years. They haven't succeeded yet. So I am sticking with choice #1.
Do you really think the stuff you are mentioning here is new? Come on.

My guess is that you "abandoned" those "myths" a long time ago, not because of the "evidence" against them, but for other factors that may very well pertain to some moral and ethical personal issues.

8:31 AM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

"It should also be clear by now that the 'pre-Cambrian pollen' story is bogus."

Nope, It isn't clear yet.

"Your 'Bible and the Geologic Column' article was of no help in this matter. Frankly, from what I read, this 'multiple catastrophe' model was badly flawed in countless ways, but the important thing here is that it utterly fails to account for the distribution of angiosperm fossils, specially, the absence of these fossils in pre-Jurassic layers."

Oh please! You cannot judge it being "flawed in countless ways" from reading that summary. Now you're just arguing from ignorance. I have yet to discuss angiosperm fossil issue with the Setterfields.

12:28 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Mike Erich the Mad Theologian said...

David,
Your definition of "evolution" is like Former President Clinton's definition of sex, anyone who does not go all the way with Darwin does not believe in evolution. Next you will be saying Buffon and Lamarck were creationists. Unformitarianism is a anti-supernaturalism presumption. It is based on the Humean idea that the probability of any event occurring depends on our experience. Even if Lyell was not consistent enough to follow it to its logical conclusion is followers were.

You are correct that no one questions that strata of rock were deposited on top of each other. The question is whether the order is such as to prove an evolutionary understanding of history. In terms of that you still have not answered the issues of deceptive discontinuities and layers out of sequence. How do you deal with this without the use of index fossils.
I have admittedly an old pamphlet from the Atomic Energy Commission explaining how the way to tell if a date given by radioactive dating in sedimentary rocks is a closed system is whether it fits previously accepted dates for the strata involved. Have things changed since then? How?

5:30 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

(Part 1 of 2)

I dug out my Creation Research Society Quartely CD ROMs. To set the record straight, I'll post here an excerpt from one of the research summries that regularly appear in that journal regarding the Precambrain pollen:

STUDIES IN THE GRAND CANYON

Palynology

Dr. George Howe published the initial paper (1986, pp. 99-104) in a series on Precambrian pollen in Grand Canyon formations. Interest in this subject was stimulated by a report by C. L. Burdick that he had isolated pollen grains of various land plants from rocks of late Precambrian Hakatai shale while doing graduate work towards a Ph.D. (subsequently denied) at the University of Arizona under Gerhard Kremp, beginning in 1964. Burdick (1966, pp. 38-50) finally published the results of his work without support of Kremp. In his paper, Howe presents a thorough review of Burdick’s work and subsequent work by others at the University of Arizona and by Arthur V. Chadwick of Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California. The latter workers claimed they could not repeat Burdick’s results and attributed Burdick’s results to contamination. Howe’s review includes excerpts from extensive correspondence and the comments of those involved. It provides an insight into what happens when results are obtained which are incompatible with current evolutionary thinking.

It was decided at a Creation Research Society meeting in April, 1983 that fresh samples from the Grand Canyon should be collected and analyzed by both the Burdick and the Chadwick-Doher methods, every possible effort being made to exclude contamination. A chemist, G. T. Matzko, agreed to carry out the pollen extractions according to both procedures.

The second paper in this series was published by W. E. Lammerts and G. F. Howe (1987, pp. 151-3). As noted in the first article in this series, claims have been made that Burdick’s recovery of pollen grains from the Precambrian Hakatai shale was due to contamination of present-day pollen picked up either during collection and transportation of the samples or by infiltration into the samples prior to collection. Lammerts and Howe therefore undertook to assess the rate at which pollen grains will contaminate exposed slides in order to determine whether or not pollen contamination might occur routinely in the laboratory or in the field.

Lammerts and Howe used various conditions in their experimental procedures, using clean ordinary slides, and slides coated with Vaseline, scotch tape, and water; collecting points near pollinating pine trees on breezy and quiet days, near sunflower and pollinating corn plants, and under an oak tree; overnight exposure to an office near pine trees; and on a laboratory table with 86 hours of exposure. The effect of wind, as should be expected, was very important. In 10 minutes, on a breezy day, 27 pollen grains were collected near a pine tree on two slides, but no grains were collected on two slides at the same location a quiet day. Lammerts and Howe concluded that the chance of contamination by airborne pollen during slide preparation and during field work is extremely low. Whatever pollen might blow into a laboratory on a windy day quickly settles to a desk top or the floor, where it sticks; therefore, they state, it would seem that reasonable care in cleaning the table, slides, and cover slips, would render unnecessary positive pressure and filtered air supplies.

6:09 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

(Part 2 of 2)

The third publication in this series was authored by G. F. Howe, E. L. Williams, G. T. Matzko, and W. E. Lammerts (1988, pp. 173-82). They reported their efforts to determine whether fossil pollen grains could be recovered from the Precambrian Hakatai Shale, as Burdick had reported, or whether negative results would be obtained as reported by University of Arizona workers and Chadwick. Samples were collected from rock exposures of the Hakatai Shale, Hermit Shale [The Hermit Shale is Permian.], and Supai Group. [The Supai Group includes Pennsylvanian and Permian rocks.] Hermit Shale was examined in addition to Hakatai Shale to see if pollen grains could be recovered from other shales and the Supai Formation was included as a control.

Rock samples were taken after chipping back several inches from the exposed surfaces of rocks which had no obvious seams or cracks, and were collected directly into plastic bags, every precaution being taken to prevent contamination. Samples were sent to G. T. Matzko for processing and pollen extraction in the chemistry laboratory at Bob Jones University. Some samples were given washes with dilute hydrochloric acid followed by water washes; some were given only water washes, and two samples of the Hakatai Shale were given dilute hydrochloric acid washes followed by digestion in dilute hydrofluoric acid, and then were given two water washes. From samples of loose material of Hakatai Shale recovered from two different locations, given either the hydrochloric acid and water washes or just water washes, fossil pollen grains were recovered on 8 of 15 slides, and from loose material from two locations of Hakatai Shale given the acid wash, hydrofluoric acid digestion, and water wash, fossil pollen grains were found on 8 of 10 slides. Photographs of the slides, taken by George Howe, and scanning electron photomicrographs, taken by E. L. Williams, were sent to an experienced palynologist for examination. This palynologist was not aware of the source from which the samples had been obtained. This was done so that objective analyses could be obtained from an expert in the field not associated with the CRS group.
According to his best judgment, pine pollen, Ephedra-like pollen, angiosperm-type pollen, fungal spores, and possible algal cells were present on some of the slides. Howe and his co-workers concluded that these results support Burdick’s claims of having discovered fossil pollen grains of gymnosperms and angiosperms in the Precambrian Hakatai Shale. This would, of course, refute the belief of evolutionists that the Precambrian sedimentary material was laid down hundreds of millions of years before pine trees (gymnosperms) and flowering plants (angiosperms) existed on the earth.

Howe and co-workers suggest the possibility that the reason Chadwick and the University of Arizona workers failed to confirm Burdick’s findings was because these workers may have exposed their samples to prolonged digestion with hydrofluoric acid. L. I. Doher, who had developed the method used by Chadwick and the other workers, had pointed out that hydrofluoric acid has a corrosive effect on pollen and spores, and recommended that the sample not be exposed to the acid any longer than necessary, and should be washed with water immediately after disaggregation with hydrofluoric acid. The CRS group plans to pursue further research which will involve additional extracts from their rock samples, with a more extensive examination of the Supai and Hermit materials.


[Source: Duane T. Gish, “MORE CREATIONIST RESEARCH (14 YEARS)—PART I: GEOLOGICAL RESEARCH,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 25, March 1989, pp. 164-165., Emphasis added]

6:13 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger David said...

Escovado,

In searching on my own, I'd already run across and read the Gish (1989) thingie that you copied and pasted here. Notice that nothing in this summary deals with the issues that I raised under the paragraph addresses to you that began with "The pollen example was not dismissed with “some secondary explanation”."

And here's my favorire part of the Gish summary...

"The CRS group plans to pursue further research which will involve additional extracts from their rock samples, with a more extensive examination of the Supai and Hermit materials."

"Plans to persue further research"??!! When are they going to get around to this "further research? This summary was published in 1989! That was over twenty years ago! Where's the additional reasearch? What does this tell about about the legitimacy of these claims?!

To all,

Ok, I see that no one can explain the angiosperm data. I also see that this has no impact on your beliefs. So, I guess that's it then. This is pointless. I could go on list thousands of other ways the YEC is disproved, but that, too, would obviously be pointless. It's not a question of whether or not "there's anyting new here". It's a question of your willingness to question.

But here's one last link to another for you all to ignore. Again, the writer is a Christian.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/agelogic-cr.htm

I think that I'm done wasting my time.

6:28 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

In the March 1997 issue of the Creation Research Society Quarterly (Volume 33, No. 1, pp. 239-242), Emmett L. Williams published a rebuttal to a critic that refused to let them publish his name who, “accused the CRS of using sloppy technique, and also of being unwilling to publish Dr. Chadwick’s research, which was instead published in Origins, a creationist publication based at Loma Linda University.” The criticisms Williams answered were all pretty much the same tired old clap trap David has dredged up. Copyright and space restrictions prevent me from posting Williams’ article here. If you really want to read it, then get a copy of the publication. I’ll post one tidbit here that I found interesting:

Recently a fellow creationist and I exchanged amiable letters over the pollen grains found in Hakatai Shale. The gentleman noted that a person who he thought was familiar with the Society’s palynological work had claimed that all of the pollen detected in the shale was closely similar to the pollen of plants which grow in the Grand Canyon region today. This statement is not correct and a portion of my answer is given as follows:

In one place in your letter you mentioned that you were puzzled as to why there should be such close similarities between the pollen found in Hakatai Shale and the plants which grow in the region today. Below are two paragraphs from the Burdick paper Microflora of the Grand Canyon (CRSQ 1996. 3(1)38-50)


“It is important to note also that an entirely different type of vegetation is indicated by the fossil spores than that which is now growing in or near the Grand Canyon. Thus Podocarlpidites simply means a fossil plant resembling the genus Podocarpus, a group of species in the yew family or Taxaceae. This genus is found in rather moist areas, such as Japan, and indicates that prior to the deposition of the formations of the Grand Canyon, the climate was not so dry and arid as now.

“None of the plants resembling the fossil species or rather genera with the exception of Ephedra now live near the Grand Canyon. Thus the pollen grains of the yellow pine, pinion pine, spruce, and Douglas fir do not resemble those found in the various formations. This also indicates that the climate in the past was warmer and less arid than now. In other words these species survived because of their genetic variability potential to adapt to the increasingly arid conditions.”

Burdick noted that most of the pollen found by him was different from pollen released by plants now. In other words these species survived because growing the region now. And fossil genera names were assigned to them. Also algae and fungal spores were detected. Once Burdick showed slides of his fossil pollen to the CRS Board. The ones removed from the Hakatai shale had the red color of the shale indicating they have been incorporated in the shale matrix and were not modern contamination.

In our study (Howe et al. 1988. CRSQ 24:173-182), the palynologist suggested that one pollen grain may be maple. Another set of pollen may be hemlock (Figures 15,16). Figure 21 may be elm pollen. Much of the pollen could not be identified but a great deal of it was not similar to plants which grow in the region today.

6:41 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

David,

Ok, I see that no one can explain the angiosperm data. I also see that this has no impact on your beliefs. So, I guess that's it then. This is pointless.

Quit being such a whiner. I have not ignored your angiosperm data. Yes, it is a problem and I am looking into it.

In order to discover the truth, one has to take into account ALL of the relevant data--including the data that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived notions. The Precambrian pollen from the Grand Canyon is one data point that has not yet gone away no matter how much you want to ignore it. I will look into the reasons for the lack of new research.

I could go on list thousands of other ways the YEC is disproved, but that, too, would obviously be pointless. It's not a question of whether or not "there's anything new here". It's a question of your willingness to question.

Now that’s a good case of the pot calling the kettle black.

7:05 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger David said...

The Burdick paper in question was published in 1966, and is considered bogus by Art Chadwick, a man who participated in the original research. Chadwick still maintains the whole pollen business is bogus. Ask yourself, why did Burdick find such a different flora from Howe, et. al? I wouldn’t trust Burdick farther than I could throw him. Burdick was also deeply involved in the “man tracks with dino tracks” fraud in Texas. Fool you once, shame on Burdick, fool you twice, shame on you.

The pollen described in the Howe paper was mostly clear and unflattened. It flunked the test for fossil pollen.

From the CRSQ:

“In our study (Howe et al. 1988. CRSQ 24:173-182), the palynologist suggested that one pollen grain may be maple. Another set of pollen may be hemlock (Figures 15,16). Figure 21 may be elm pollen. Much of the pollen could not be identified but a great deal of it was not similar to plants which grow in the region today.”

This is simply wrong. I found the Howe, et. al (1988) paper. Here are the identifications from each figure.

Fig 1 – Certainly pine
Fig 2 – Same as Fig 1
Fig 3 – Probably pine
Fig 4 – Probably same as Fig 3
Fig 5 – Ephedra
Fig 6 – Probably fungal or algal spores
Fig 7 – From flowering plant group too large to allow ID
Fig 8 – Maybe oak or maple
Fig 9 – Similar to Figs 7 and 8
Fig 10 – Resolution too poor to ID
Fig 11 – Fungal spore
Fig 12 – Fungal spore
Fig 13 – Badly corroded, probably pine
Fig 14 – Wood charcoal or “industrial fly ash” (!)
Fig 15 – Probably hemlock
Fig 16 – Like 15
Fig 17 – Algal cell
Fig 18 – Not pollen
Fig 19 – Can’t tell, could be pollen
Fig 20 – Can’t tell without more resolution
Fig 21 – Plantago or elm
Fig 22 – Pine
Fig 23 –Pine with evidence of being young – REAL young
Fig 24 – Pine
Fig 25, 26, 27, 28 – Same as Fig 24
Fig 29 – Rock material
Fig 30 – Tracheid from conifer
Fig 31 – Probably Doug fir or larch
Fig 32 – Not pollen
Fig 38 – Covered in coating material, can’t ID
Fig 39 – Charred carbon
Fig 40 – Charred carbon
Fig 41 – Mystery

Look at this list. Do you think that “much of the pollen could not be identified but a great deal of it was not similar to plants which grow in the region today” is even remotely accurate? Emmett L. Williams appears to be lying about the results.

You just don’t get it. A single bogus study from the 1960s made by a man that can’t be trusted is worthless. Misrepresentation of what was found in the 1983 samples. Twenty-five years have passed since the last sample was taken by YECers. Don’t you understand what this means??!! Where’s the “further research??!! WHERE IS THE POLLEN IN ALL OF THE OTHER CAMBRIAN ROCKS???!!! For crying out loud, think man, think.

8:06 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger David said...

"Now that’s a good case of the pot calling the kettle black."

What, you mean you have a thousand more examples like your bogus pollen data?

8:07 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger David said...

In order to discover the truth, one has to take into account ALL of the relevant data--including the data that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived notions."

YES! Like the angiosperm data! When you've figured this one out, let me know.

8:12 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

David,

I read the Howe, et al, 1988 paper. I do agree with your assessment that Williams (March 1997) did not accurately described what they found. And yes, I have to admit, the pollen described in the Howe paper looks mostly clear and unflattened to me too.

Yes, David, I do “get it.” If all that existed was “a single bogus study from the 1960s made by a man that can’t be trusted,” then I wouldn’t give it a second thought. I am trying to find out for myself if, in fact, no further research has happened with this issue since 1988. If that is true, then I will agree with your position about the lack Precambrian pollen in the Grand Canyon.

In the email from Glenn Morton you posted earlier (http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199709/0101.html), he references Steve Austin’s book, Grand Canyon: A Monument to Catastrophe. I dug up my copy of this book. Austin goes into enough detail about Chadwick’s work to convince me that the results of the Howe, et al, 1988 paper are not certain.

YES! Like the angiosperm data! When you've figured this one out, let me know.

Will do.

9:43 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Escovado said...

"What, you mean you have a thousand more examples like your bogus pollen data?"

I was thinking more along the lines of the bogus ape-men fossils you were pushing in an earlier thread.

9:59 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Garrett said...

You say "If Scripture is inspired or God-breathed it has to be inerrant and infallible in all that it addresses both in spiritual matters and physical and historical matters"

In principle, I agree, but your application regarding "physical," or scientific matters, needs some major tweaking. We all know the common objection "the bible isn't a science textbook!" and everyone agrees. But, creationists say, when the bible addresses scientific matters it must do so with 100% scientific accuracy, or else it's erroneous and unworthy to be called God's word. Hence, the firmament couldn't POSSIBLY be thought of as solid by the Hebrews like all other ancient people thought, and the waters above it must be harmonized with modern science. But let's examine that statement a little more closely. Does the bible address questions that science also addresses? On the broadest level yes. For example, both science and the bible give answers on the origin of the cosmos and mankind. However, when the bible addresses topics that science might also address, it does so in a decidedly non-scientific manner. Not UNscientific, because that assumes that it's giving a competing scientific explanation. But it clearly isn't. The bible doesn't use precise scientific language. It answers questions on human origins in a way modern scientists never would. They are coming at the questions from different angles. The bible is far more concerned with questions of "who and why" and is functionally oriented whereas science is more concerned with the material "how and when." But you come to the text assuming that unless it meets our modern expectations of scientific accuracy, it's not worthy to be called God's word. No wonder so many people find inerrancy untenable! They are encouraged by evangelicals to expect something of it that they clearly should not, namely, superior scientific explanations for the age of the earth, man's origins, astronomical phenomena, etc. But does the bible err if it says the sun and moon are the two greatest lights (there are greater lights out there) and the moon gives off it's own light (it doesn't)? According to the rigors of modern science, yes. Same for Jesus' botany (is the bible scientifically false for saying the mustard seed is smallest, when it isn't?) But, as Calvin commented on Genesis 1:6, "to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere." To adapt that to to a modern situation, if you think that God's making of animals "after their kind" offers a scientifically accurate paradigm for understanding the fine points of molecular evolution and all evidence for macroevolution must be presuppositionally out of the question, then I say, the bible only speaks on biological matters in plain, everyday observational language, and he who would learn biology (and other recondite arts like astronomy and geology), let him go elsewhere! It's pointless to try and find a scientific definition of the word "kind." And it is naive and dangerous to say that bible-based geology, astronomy, and biology trump all modern "anti-God" explanations in the realm of competing scientific ideas, since bible geology, astronomy, and biology (if those terms have any meaning at all) are expressed in mostly pre-scientific, functional, phenomenological language, often based solely on naked eye observation and common ANE conventions. So despite your good intentions, by demanding modern scientific accuracy from the bible and applying a foreign, anachronistic standard to it, you only contribute to the bible's public disrepute and undermine it's authority and inerrancy, agreeing in essence with Dawkins that the bible offer's a rival scientific theory that can be falsified on our terms, rather than dealt with honestly on its own.

10:28 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

So basically you wrote all of that, Garrett, to say God is not truthful with His revelation? Is that your position?

10:38 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Garrett said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:52 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Garrett said...

Ok, I see what you're saying. No, God was not untruthful, but yes, on your terms, were you to work them out consistently, the bible would have errors for all of the reasons I mentioned. That's why I don't accept the implications of your premises, since doing so would force me to admit that the bible is scientifically false, which of course isn't the case as Calvin and I tried to make clear.

11:32 PM, June 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

No, God was not untruthful, but yes, on your terms, were you to work them out consistently, the bible would have errors for all of the reasons I mentioned.

So in other words, you agree with Kenton Sparks thesis. That being, the evangelical view of infallibility and inerrancy is intellectually untenable and must be abandoned.

I am closing the comments on this post. But stick around, I'll have a follow up in a forth coming one where you can respond to my assertion.

5:16 AM, June 11, 2010  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home