Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossil Distribution and Method of Deposition in Geological Layers
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 16 of 20 (194927)
03-28-2005 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Percy
03-27-2005 9:09 PM


OT: Is Faith unique?
I've been involved in this debate for over 20 years, and I must confess I've never met anyone like Faith
If you have some free time, Talk.origins messages by Zoe Althrop. Zoe seemed to be more interested in learning that Faith, but she was twice as stubborn, just as prone to ignore evidence, and probably less educated. It was Zoe who insisted for months that 5 divided by 0 was 5, and who defined "reliable witness" as "someone who has convinced a lot of people" (my paraphrase, not really a quote), was sure that the 2LoT was a result of the Fall and should be called the "law of Sin and Death", claimed that electricity flowing in a wire is a (low) form of life (we call it a "live wire, don't we?), withstood the efforts of many to explain isochron dating for about two years, and on and on. Faith's a pip, all right, but he/she doesn't yet have the breadth or staying power of a Zoe.
(There are gobs of isochron threads because, whenever she was forced into a corner or thoroughly refuted, she'd modify her original claim slightly and start a new thread).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 03-27-2005 9:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 03-28-2005 9:48 AM JonF has not replied
 Message 18 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 03-28-2005 10:18 AM JonF has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 17 of 20 (194942)
03-28-2005 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by JonF
03-28-2005 8:56 AM


Re: OT: Is Faith unique?
The 5/0=5 part makes Zoe sounds a little like WillowTree. Maybe we should call such people "knowledge egalitarians" because of their belief that the opinions of people who are uninformed on a topic deserve equal consideration with those of people who have studied it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JonF, posted 03-28-2005 8:56 AM JonF has not replied

  
Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 20 (194948)
03-28-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by JonF
03-28-2005 8:56 AM


Re: OT: Is Faith unique?
I find her style similar to Ari Fleischer, the "admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations" school of debate.
I particularly liked the "I've looked at the evidence presented for evolution and it makes me believe in the flood more" approach. The technical debate term I think is the "I'm rubber, you're glue" effect. Dismissal with a twist.
At the risk of being an armchair psychologist maybe this applies: Page not found - John is Content a sample "Another(game), Why don’t youyes but, involves the interesting party game in which one person presents a problem and the rest of the group offers suggestions, all of which are turned down no matter what their value."
ABB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by JonF, posted 03-28-2005 8:56 AM JonF has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 19 of 20 (194997)
03-28-2005 2:47 PM


It seems to me that imagination plays a far greater role in Faith's own attempted explanations.
To go over her explanation of the strata described in this link it isn't hard to see assumptions that ought to be supported by further investigation - and some of it is beyond what might be considered reasonable speculation.
Stump Formation:
This apparently represents the end of the flood. But how this can be told without examining earlier strata is hard to say - what if another stratum indicating a terrestrial instead of marine environment were found ? How would that be explained ?
Worse the assumption is still that the Flood waters are churned up quite seriously - another reference I have found makes reference to a plesiosaur fossil being found in this particular stratum (here - about halfway down).
Morrison Formation:
Windy Hill Member - still in the last stages of the Flood
The remaining members supposedly represent a post-Flood environment, with water rushing off the highlands.
Since the area is a basin obviously there is higher land nearby. However this should have drained first unless something prevented it - and there has been no check for any evidence.
Worse if the flood was violent enough to keep the pelsiosaur remains near the top, then why wouldn't the dinousar bones have already moved - shouldn't we be finding some of them hem in the lower, marine levels ?
Cedar Mountain Formation. Still after the Flood only for some reason the flood waters which somehow got trapped in the highlands are now bringing down bones from Cretaceous era dinosaurs. No reaonable explanation for that has been offered - the more so since this order is consistently found. Why aren't dinosaurs more mixed up ? And found in post-Cretaceous strata ?
Dakota Sandstone. High tide part one. Well to call this a "high tide' is just daft. Obviously we are talking about a major flooding event at the least especially as it is not just this stratum..
Mowry Shale: More "high tide" with fossils including fish scales, giant ammonites and oysters. Well I've seen fossilised oyster beds from the Jurassic and they are pretty solid - and in life they would have been anchored to the bottm. I'm certainly not convinced that they could be carried about by a "high tide" - and why are we getting this mix of small and light with larger and heavier objects ? Shale is produced from very fine particles, and I can't think of anything much lighter than fish scales, but the rest of it doesn't fit that.
Frontier Sandstone: Presumably MORE Flood waters coming down from the highlands. No dinosaurs, though.
Mancos Shale (main body): Another "high tide" ?
Does anyone other than Faith find her scenario even remotely plausible ? If you do then please explain why.
This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-28-2005 02:49 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Trixie, posted 03-28-2005 3:43 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 20 of 20 (195000)
03-28-2005 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
03-28-2005 2:47 PM


Yet another wee point
I did notice in the dinosaurs up a mountain idea that, when asked if grass ran up the mountain too, she missed the point completely that grasses are found way above dinosaurs and explained it as grass washing down the mountain with the dinosaur remains. This, to me, suggests that she wants to build up theories of how things happened, whithout even knowing what happened. She's explaining how grass is found with dinosaurs without realising that grasses are not found with dinosaurs. Its arguing from a point of total ignorance and shows a complete lack of wanting to learn anything about the subject she wishes to pontificate on.
I would encourage Faith to find out more about the theory she's trying to trash, otherwise she just ends up trashing an idea that no-one is putting forwards. If you want to show a theory is wrong it helps to know what the theory actually states, otherwise how do you know it's wrong in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2005 2:47 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024