Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   QUESTIONS
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 113 (6571)
03-11-2002 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Peter
03-11-2002 10:38 AM


quote:
We can infer from the fossil record that some animals, and types
of animals existed at times when others did not.
That last statement is sufficient to invalidate a literal
interpretation of the creation in genesis.
I'm afriad I don't follow the quote above.
My interpretation is this: In the ordinary course of events, animals usually do not fossilze when they die. Usually there is an unusual event like a volcanic eruption or flood. Fossilization is more likely to occur in some sort of cataclysm than in normal circumstances. So if we find widespread fossilization it would be reasonable to infer widespread cataclysm. And, if we find fossil graveyards with millions of animals jammed together, it would be reasonable to infer cataclysm of titanic proportions. I believe the evidence to be 'supportive' of a global flood. The fossil evidence doesn't prove there was a global flood, but it is consistent with that idea.
[This message has been edited by Punisher, 03-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Peter, posted 03-11-2002 10:38 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Brachinus, posted 03-11-2002 12:42 PM Punisher has not replied
 Message 78 by nator, posted 03-11-2002 12:50 PM Punisher has not replied

  
Brachinus
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 113 (6582)
03-11-2002 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Punisher
03-11-2002 11:03 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Punisher:
[B]
quote:
We can infer from the fossil record that some animals, and types
of animals existed at times when others did not.
That last statement is sufficient to invalidate a literal
interpretation of the creation in genesis.
I'm afriad I don't follow the quote above.
My interpretation is this: In the ordinary course of events, animals usually do not fossilze when they die. Usually there is an unusual event like a volcanic eruption or flood.
Brachinus:
What is the basis for that assumption? And are you suggesting that these cataclysms occurred in such a way as to separate out more primitive forms from more modern ones?
Fossilization is more likely to occur in some sort of cataclysm than in normal circumstances. So if we find widespread fossilization it would be reasonable to infer widespread cataclysm.
Brachinus:
Or cataclysms, plural.
And, if we find fossil graveyards with millions of animals jammed together, it would be reasonable to infer cataclysm of titanic proportions.
Brachinus:
It would also be reasonable to expect to find representatives of all the creatures from that time and place to be caught up in it. That's not what the fossil record shows.
I believe the evidence to be 'supportive' of a global flood. The fossil evidence doesn't prove there was a global flood, but it is consistent with that idea.
Brachinus:
So where are the lobsters in Cambrian strata? Where are the trilobites in Pleistocene strata?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 11:03 AM Punisher has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 78 of 113 (6584)
03-11-2002 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Punisher
03-11-2002 11:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
quote:
We can infer from the fossil record that some animals, and types
of animals existed at times when others did not.
That last statement is sufficient to invalidate a literal
interpretation of the creation in genesis.
I'm afriad I don't follow the quote above.
My interpretation is this: In the ordinary course of events, animals usually do not fossilze when they die. Usually there is an unusual event like a volcanic eruption or flood. Fossilization is more likely to occur in some sort of cataclysm than in normal circumstances. So if we find widespread fossilization it would be reasonable to infer widespread cataclysm. And, if we find fossil graveyards with millions of animals jammed together, it would be reasonable to infer cataclysm of titanic proportions. I believe the evidence to be 'supportive' of a global flood. The fossil evidence doesn't prove there was a global flood, but it is consistent with that idea.
[This message has been edited by Punisher, 03-11-2002]

No, you are mistaken about how fossilization occurs. A cataclism doesn't need to happen. In fact, cataclisms are more likely to destroy than to preserve.
Most fossils are of bottom-dwelling marine animals which are the most likely to get buried in calm water/silt with low oxygen levels.
Here is a good basic explanation:
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo3xx/308/cha1.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 11:03 AM Punisher has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 113 (6586)
03-11-2002 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Punisher
03-11-2002 8:55 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Punisher:
[B] The fossil record shows nothing. You make an assumption and seek to understand the fossil record in light of that assumption. Suppose you were on a dig 2000 years from now, and you discovered, in different strata, a Shetland pony, a quarterhorse, a thorough-bred, and a Clydesdale. Being completely honest, wouldn't you try to arrange them in some sort of evolutionary fashion - as though the big horse evolved from the smaller one?[/QUOTE]
No.
They all are basically identical from an evolutionary/paleontological sense.
They all have single toes with vestigial tarsal bones on either side. They all have the same skull and tooth construction. They all have the same spinal column construction. etc
And, most importantly, they would all be found in the same layer of the geologic column.
Now, if they were found in different layers, that would be something different.
Also, it is incorrect to assume (and paleontologists and Evolutionary Biologists don't) that smaller means older and larger means more recent.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-11-2002]
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 8:55 AM Punisher has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 1:34 PM nator has not replied

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 113 (6590)
03-11-2002 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by nator
03-11-2002 1:00 PM


quote:
Now, if they were found in different layers, that would be something different
that is what I said in my original hypothetical situation; "in different strata"
original: Suppose you were on a dig 2000 years from now, and you discovered, in different strata, a Shetland pony, a quarterhorse, a thorough-bred, and a Clydesdale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nator, posted 03-11-2002 1:00 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by joz, posted 03-11-2002 1:38 PM Punisher has not replied
 Message 82 by Brachinus, posted 03-11-2002 1:46 PM Punisher has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 113 (6591)
03-11-2002 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Punisher
03-11-2002 1:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
Suppose you were on a dig 2000 years from now, and you discovered, in different strata, a Shetland pony, a quarterhorse, a thorough-bred, and a Clydesdale.
HTF did they get into different strata? Did a global flood come along and "sort" them?
If they were buried (by man) I`m pretty sure that these putative future paleontologists would notice things like discontinuities in the rock strata....
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 1:34 PM Punisher has not replied

  
Brachinus
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 113 (6592)
03-11-2002 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Punisher
03-11-2002 1:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
that is what I said in my original hypothetical situation; "in different strata"
original: Suppose you were on a dig 2000 years from now, and you discovered, in different strata, a Shetland pony, a quarterhorse, a thorough-bred, and a Clydesdale.

If they were found in different strata, that would imply some sort of evolutionary link over eons of time. And if we know that they didn't evolve over eons of time, their presence in different strata would completely undermine the basis of estimating evolutionary relationships through stratigraphy.
But since they didn't evolve over eons of time, it's a safe bet that we won't be finding them in different strata.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Punisher, posted 03-11-2002 1:34 PM Punisher has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 113 (6608)
03-11-2002 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by quicksink
03-11-2002 8:45 AM


"primitive species are found lower in the strata, and more modern and "advanced" are found further up. "
--Sounds like the flood to me!
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by quicksink, posted 03-11-2002 8:45 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by joz, posted 03-11-2002 4:36 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 113 (6610)
03-11-2002 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by TrueCreation
03-11-2002 4:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"primitive species are found lower in the strata, and more modern and "advanced" are found further up. "
--Sounds like the flood to me!

Ok TC explain to me by what mechanism does a sudden innundation of H2O sort dead organisms by degree of sophistication rather than by size/shape/density....
Thats assuming it wouldn`t just churn everything up into a homogenous layer....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by TrueCreation, posted 03-11-2002 4:31 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by TrueCreation, posted 03-11-2002 6:03 PM joz has not replied
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 03-11-2002 8:19 PM joz has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 113 (6614)
03-11-2002 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by quicksink
03-10-2002 1:58 AM


"I appreciate the insult to my intelligence."
--I wasn't the one that put myself into the position of asserting this:
quote:
wow... that sure was confusing... all i could discern was you mentioning that rats and rabbits are not found as fossils."
--Besides it was not put forth as an insult, but as a clarification, but of course, you see there was nothing to be clarified to the degree that 'it sertainly was confusing' and you could descern a single statment that still was discerned incorrectly.
"you need to brush up on your speeling and grammar."
--You really do not wan't me to run your posts through a spell-check, your insults and sarcasm are drastically lowering your credibility.
"I’m incorrect? Wow! Where are these fossilized humans then? "
--Possibly Erectus, Homo Sapiens, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
"so you’re telling me that if you showed this theory to an unbiased archaeologist/geologist/scientist, they would have no problem? I doubt it"
--Mabye you should get one in here then, also, if you can't argue the position, don't assert the question as if you can. I will see this as a withdraw unless you can comment with more relevance.
"so you’re saying that the most scientifically informed people in the world have been convinced by a better marketing campaign? Who’s running that marketing campaign, and why? Scientists are in pursuit of the truth."
--The people running the campaign, Teachers, and University professors, scientists are in persuit for the truth, with a pre-conceived assumption based on their life-long teaching that Evolution is the only explination.
"so tell me- why do all these universities and public schools teach evolution. Could it be because there is more evidence?"
--No, because they wish to dismiss God as a creator.
"ya hit the head of the nail- we dismiss your theories because they cannot be proved"
--Throw evolution out the window then, it has not been 'proven', as neither has the theory of a Heliocentric solar system to any degree of such proof, being truth to a highest degree.
"and we have a natural explanation for the origins of life."
--..It needs alot of work, I believe that we need more than a hunch on how it could have happend...
"It is your vocal protestant minority that keeps waving this half-assed evidence ein the air that insists that science makes a U-turn and investigate your unsupported theories, and it becomes really sickening."
--We do do science, it is science that it all comes from, its the conclusions made from observations, and experimentations that wich we draw a line for God, the Scientific world want's to give no foot-hold for God in any scientific conclusion. You seriously must calm yourself, I am pushing myself to cooperate with your intimate ignorance and biased mind-set with a massive exaduration of arrogance on your part. You have made a line for yourself in which you should be compaired and not diffrentiated uppon your age, which is a drastic fallacy which lowers your credibility to a level of zero, and it is not at all in the least bit appealing.
"I am a twelve year-old boy who has only a basic understanding of plate tectonics, geology, and science for that matter."
--See above...
"You are an adult that specializes in geology, is reading a biology text book, and a love for disproving science."
--If you consider a 15 year old an adult, and I have yet to tackle any thing to invalidate science, I will send you off to college where you can find out about this alien concept of science if you can do a search through my numerous 860+ posts and find me where I have done so.
"Surely you can present something of interest- quote a website- that would suit me."
--It is not all about quoting websites, quicksink, surelly you would have found this to be true.
"let me be honest- I have not the slightest clue what you’re talaking about- but perhaps some other more experienced person in this forum could help me out."
--Then lets stear clear from many of these basic biological or geological questions quicksink.
"Also, I cannot seen to find the original question."
--you are the one that asserted the question:
quote:
"4). Can you provide a good reason, using Creation Science, as to why a bird would be more closely related (genetically) to a snake than a bat?"
"I am not an evilutionist drone, despite your strong belief of the contrary."
--Believe me..it is evident throughout all your posts that you sertainly are.
"I do know quite a bit more than the avberage child of my age."
--And I know much much more than the average 15 year old, though I rarelly assert questions that I am not ready to argue or do not have the scientific background to do so, and when It does happen, I do in no way act ignorant, sarcastic, or arrogant.
"How many creationists do you know that could explain the theory of relativity?"
--I know many.. They go to my (High)school.
"but one could interpret it, and all other evidences, as evidence for evolution."
--Back to what I said which is being commented on:
quote:
Name something that had to be discovered under the influence of Evolution.. Evolution doesn't advance science, neither does Creation, science is advanced by knowledge through experimentation, and observation.
--This again is not an advancement that Evolution had to have brought about, no matter your interperetation.
"So where is this other mechanism that ordered the strata?"
--I must have quoted myself atleast 12 times in my time of these forums.
quote:
There are many factors, intelligence, agility/menuverability(could it climb treas or have the ability to menuver in the midst of chaos well), shape/structure (fur, density (muscle sinks and fat floats I believe from because of density), lungs and air, etc), environment, habitat (did it live on the bottom of the ocean, middle, top of the ocean, live on ground, could it fly, and if it could fly how long can it stay in the air and when it is on the ground what is its relevance to menuverability (pterosaurs are thought to 'waddle' simmilar to the way bats menuver on ground as is shown by pelvis structure), also how can this animal adapt to quick changing environments, ie ice age or rapid climate changes could have caused virtually all non-insulated animals to die quickly and be subject to quick burrial on the next sediment deposits with little rustling around of the bodies. Hydrologic sorting plays a very small part in the reason they are burried the way they are.
--Note these arent all the factors, just the obvious ones to get discussion started.
--Environmental conditions would also contribute.
"I see a lot more science that the average 40 year old."
--Grammer, or were you going to finish?
"you’re right- let’s leave it to people like stephen hawking and carl sagan"
--Hm... and I thought they were both cosmologists and astrophysicists, well I guess that smarts.
"as well as all those highly experienced biologists and geologists who know their field like the back of their hand, but have been convinced by the finer marketing campaign of the evilutionists."
--Now surelly you have something to back up your claim, as you are so confident. What is it that has convinced them, or is it too advanced for us and we just take the scientists word for it.
"let’s not try t fill this issue with scientific technicals. We see primitive species deeper in the strata, and more adapted and modern looking ones at the top "
--Thats right, no argument with that.
"Unless I am grossly mistaken, most creationists claim that speciation has never been observed and thus cannot have happened (this is false- search lake victoria- speciation- sand bar)."
--Well then I must say that they then are 'grossly' ill-informed.
"Speciation is evidence of evolution, is it not."
--Speciation is a process of evolution, per se, nothing that is going to get you a dog from a horse an any time-period though, its basically a 'devolving' process.
"You seem to be swimming against mainstream creation-science when you say that speciation could have ordered these fossils, however that’s possible."
--Speciation, ordering the fossils? Speciation did not order the fossils, speciation is a process of diversification and veriety, it isn't a fossil orderation.
"Maybe you could elaborate for the sake of the elementary student."
--Emphesis is above.
"Firstly, how would that be evidence of creationism?"
--your the one trying to argue it, I am not arguing against it. This is basically just as much 'evidence' as the existance of llamas is evidence of creation, its a bit irrelevant.
"Secondly, you have not mentioned one dating method that goes against the old earth."
--How can I! You have such a long time-scale!
"Thirdly, ancient geneology, tree-ring dating, coral core dating"
--Mabye you should emphesise or give reference in details, as I can assert that 1000 year old cow droppings proves a young earth but it isn't really going to mean anything untill I can explain why it is.
"(dates back 40000 years, etcs, all verify beliefs regarding the age of the egyptians, chinese, and other ancient cultures. Radiometric dating, when used side-by-side with the above dating methods, works surprisingly well, considering the earth is only 10000 years old."
--See above.
"the flood would have deposited sediment layers and large boulders across the face of the planet ar am I just stupid?"
--They are, allover the planet.. Any Geological concept whether young earth or old earth requires this, especially with an ice age, but we wouldn't be aware of that now would we?
"c14 dating works well with all other natural and unnatural methods of dating. But you address that issue later.
And are you implying that if the theory of evolution crumbled, creation would be correct? Wow"
--Hm... Nope, I've read over my response bout 3 times and still havent found where I made that assertion.
"how would these records survive the flood?"
--Because they were post-flood, your not going to get records of a flood written before the flood happens...
"I love this typical delaying tactic- pretend to be interested in something that completely demolishes your argument- but since you asked"
--You should try it some-time, or mabye I'm using Joz's 'lure them in and open up with the big guns' tactic, it shows that I am not narrow-minded.
"I love this typical delaying tactic- pretend to be interested in something that completely demolishes your argument- but since you asked
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/answered.htm
an excellent site that addresses this and many other issues. Do a search on google as well.
http://www.moses-egypt.net/STAR-MAP_s2-FAQ.asp
there’s another that does not touch the issue of creationism versus evolution"
--The first one was unable to load, it seems the link is wrong, though the second I can comment on. It does not have any dispute and is evident by its own words that it does not conflict with the date of the flood in any of these quotes where it mentions a date:
quote:
and even for a fair dating to one of the oldest Chinese records of an eclipse (1050 BC). Stephenson’s "Historical Eclipses" is one of the best recent publications in this field, but still it must be borne in mind that the Senmut star map is 500-800 years further back in times.
--Looks like I have no problem with the Chinese records as of yet either.
quote:
Furthermore, one of the oldest known Egyptian presentations of a planetary position, places Jupiter close to the decan (celestial sector of 10-degrees) of Sirius. This dates back some 4200 years, and is recorded on a fragment of a starclock-diagram depicted inside a coffin-lid - (a traditional method of recording).
quote:
A thousand years before the time of Senmut, the astronomer-priests were developing such skills by constant observation of the firmament, which necessitated the keeping of accurate records, especially with regard to calculating celestial positions and cyclic phenomena.
quote:
The observation that the Senmut-map presents a concrete celestial conjunction 1534 BC seems to be supported by the subsequent maps in the following centuries demonstrating that these conditions are reflected here, too.
quote:
Concerning the above mentioned tms n hntt on the Senmut star map - cf. the treatise’s paragraph 3 - the following note may be added: The early existence of several variants of this expression is well known, e.g. tms n hnt and tms n hnty etc., several of which go back to the star clock diagrams belonging to the early coffin groups (c. 2200 BC). However, the precise combination in our case, tms n hntt , seems to be found on the Senmut star map for the first time.
quote:
Given that there is no safe way of extrapolating so far back in time, it would of course be risky to give the exact hour of an eclipse 3500 years ago, as has been done in the paper under discussion. (It was merely intended to serve as an additional illustration of how precise the information of the Senmut map would be). As stated above, it is of no significance for the basic dating of this star map. In any case, the general positions in the sky for the Sun, Moon, and all the planets are correct and unambiguous.
--Nothing in this paper challenges the date of the flood, but actually, as I said earlier, was an interesting read and was informative, not to mention appealing to the dating of the Flood.
"I have, and I do not understand how this could support the flood model"
--See my quote on this in this post. If you have any comments or think that there is anything that exists in the record you can challenge it. It is a perfect supportation of the Flood model.
"absolutel. But when you have two theories side-by-side, the one that explains the facts the most consistently using the least amount of unnatural phenomena and speculation wins the battle for the hearts of the scientist."
--(Creationism it is!)
"Well, the Bible states that God stopped THE SUN FROM ORBITING THE EARTH (So the sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day -Joshua 10:13b) Assuming that the Bible really meant that the earth stopped orbiting around the sun, we can assume that it would take god to completely defy the laws of nature. So clever, were these creationists, that they discovered the missing day in space. This is of course an urban legend. Oh well- god still did it."
--I am aware of the myth of NASA discovering a missing day. Also, where did you ever come to the conclusion that the bible says that God stopped the Earth from orbiting around the sun, this is contrary to what it says. Some creationists do go for the maraculous event that God sopped the earth from orbiting or stopped the earth from spinning. Though I take a different approach. It may have been a wobble in the axis of the Earths tilt, caused by an astroid impact, or a fly-by of a large body.
"tree-ring dating, c14 dating, and ancient geneology dating all come to the same conclusion- the Egyptians are older than the flood."
--You need to re-work your assertion, provide more evidence, as your cosmological impications are wrong.
"Coral cores, varves, and etc all prove that the earth is far older than the creationist model."
--No actually it doesn't, tell me why it is, and I would like a detailed explination on the Coral cores implication as well.
"But there is a reason for this, I;m sure. In fact, I bet all these methods really indicate that the planet is as old as the creationist model suggests it is"
--I sure have found so.
"OK- I’ll say I and Stephen Hawking, the late Carl Sagan, all archaeologists, geologists, scientists, teachers, etc. Now, correct us all, will you. I’m dying to know where these dating methods are"
--I hope you are ready to explain what I asked for you 2 questions back. After you have done so, I will give you a more appropriate response.
"I gave you the precious links, and possibly you could do some research of your own, if you are indeed so interested in this."
--I gave you my response on your cosmological inference, your postulate was wrong, its probably a good Idea to read the link before it is given also. Furthermore, I have about 11 references in my favorites on this, not a one describes the reason for their dates, neither have I gotten it out of any other person.
"coral cores date back 40000 years, for some reason."
--I found some 40billion year old shrubs in my back yard, I guess that invalidates the big bang idea. (please, detail, or reference)
"you haven’t addressed any of the other dating methods."
--Neither has yourself given any detail, accept in assertion seemingly based on what somebody told you most likely.
"And please elaborate on the tree-ring c14 issue"
--If I might quote:
AiG - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
quote:
Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.
"
but that didn’t even seem to address the issue. The best you can present is doubt over the dating methods."
--If I did not place doubt on them, you shouldn't place doubt on my cow feces or my 40 billion year old shrubs, because thats just as much information as you have given me.
"But no evidence that the methods point to the creationist models, like they should.
Your arguments are just chsing evolution, but not strengthening creationism."
--Ehem, neither has yourself.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by quicksink, posted 03-10-2002 1:58 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by quicksink, posted 03-12-2002 5:07 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 113 (6615)
03-11-2002 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by joz
03-11-2002 4:36 PM


"Ok TC explain to me by what mechanism does a sudden innundation of H2O sort dead organisms by degree of sophistication rather than by size/shape/density....
Thats assuming it wouldn`t just churn everything up into a homogenous layer...."
--See my response to quicksink, it is in there on the sorting mechenism, they were deposited in many many heterogeneous layers, contrary to a single homegeneous statum.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by joz, posted 03-11-2002 4:36 PM joz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 87 of 113 (6625)
03-11-2002 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by joz
03-11-2002 4:36 PM


Joz & TC,
Take a look here, http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=29&p=12 , message 181 (last half) dealing with problems of flood sorting fossils. I got bored pointing out all the problems with TCs "model" (not that he presented one). You, along with myself & others will be back & forth for aeons with this example & that, & get exactly nowhere.
So take a leaf out of my book & join me in pushing for TCs "flood model of fossil deposition". No more single examples, no more "these are cleverer, these will live longer, these can fly". A model that can be universally applied please.
TC, please present. Message 181 went unanswered & is relevant to the discussion here.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by joz, posted 03-11-2002 4:36 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by TrueCreation, posted 03-11-2002 8:36 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 90 by joz, posted 03-11-2002 8:39 PM mark24 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 113 (6626)
03-11-2002 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by mark24
03-11-2002 8:19 PM


"Take a look here, http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=29&p=12 , message 181 (last half) dealing with problems of flood sorting fossils. I got bored pointing out all the problems with TCs "model" (not that he presented one). You, along with myself & others will be back & forth for aeons with this example & that, & get exactly nowhere."
--This is a good idea probably to get back to that one, I never got the chance to do respond, my current knowledge is much higher than previously in geological (some biological) and atmospheric dynamics. Though I do believe that examples that would attempt to contredict the model is a good process, though it obviously would be an endless one from a debate like this. As to find it theoretical it must be found falsifiable without falsification.
"So take a leaf out of my book & join me in pushing for TCs "flood model of fossil deposition". No more single examples, no more "these are cleverer, these will live longer, these can fly". A model that can be universally applied please."
--See above.
"TC, please present. Message 181 went unanswered & is relevant to the discussion here."
--Yes it very well may be, i'll get to it. I previously attempted a response but did not finish, I will start over with my knew knowledge on the subject.
(Sorry, post 88 is missing because of a double post of the same thing)
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 03-11-2002 8:19 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by mark24, posted 03-12-2002 4:22 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 113 (6627)
03-11-2002 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by mark24
03-11-2002 8:19 PM


Thats what i was asking for bud, sorry TC if it wasn`t expressed clearly enough but a general model is what we want here....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 03-11-2002 8:19 PM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by TrueCreation, posted 03-11-2002 10:09 PM joz has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 113 (6629)
03-11-2002 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by joz
03-11-2002 8:39 PM


"Thats what i was asking for bud, sorry TC if it wasn`t expressed clearly enough but a general model is what we want here.... "
--What would you call a general model? Are not these factors not going to contribute to the burrial of an animal?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by joz, posted 03-11-2002 8:39 PM joz 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