Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 172 of 226 (669881)
08-04-2012 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Granny Magda
08-04-2012 9:06 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Sure, but not crabs or lobsters, unambiguous examples of which only appear from the Jurassic onwards.
OK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Granny Magda, posted 08-04-2012 9:06 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 174 of 226 (669902)
08-05-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by jar
07-30-2012 2:14 PM


Re: Cumberland Bone Cave
Yeah, and speaking of the Cumberland Bone Cave:
Because the bones in the cave were moved around by water and scattered by the feet of trapped animals, there are no intact skeletons. Rather, the bones were buried and preserved like a complex fossil salad with bits and pieces mixed together helter-skelter into a matrix of bone, clay and calcium carbonate.
Thoughts, Portillo?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 07-30-2012 2:14 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 200 of 226 (672524)
09-09-2012 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Portillo
09-09-2012 3:02 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Many fossils are dated according to the rocks they are found in, the rocks are dated by the fossils that are found in them, and the fossils are sorted out according to their hypothetical evolutionary order. Thats circular reasoning.
This is a classic creationist blunder. And every time I read it, I wonder if you guys ever think about what you're saying. Can you really imagine a geologist standing up at a geological conference and saying: "I know this rock is ten million years old because the fossils in it are ten million years old. And I know that the fossils in it are ten million years old because I know that the rock is ten million years old" --- and no-one makes an objection?
Clearly the creationist fantasy of what geologists do cannot be an actual description of what they do; and it isn't.
Dr David Raup said about the supposed order of the fossil record, "So the geological time scale and the basic facts of biological change over time are totally independent of evolutionary theory... One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accomodate this 'fact' in their flood geology."
He makes an excellent point, which I have also made several times on this thread. You are not accounting for what the fossil record looks like. You are accounting for what you think the fossil record looks like. But it doesn't look like that. Creationists aren't even trying to account for the facts, they're trying to account for what they imagine the facts to be.
Like this:
In a flood, it is the ocean bottom dwelling animals that would be buried first, by underwater mudslides. Like a cement truck dumping cement over the creatures. Thats how you get the mass fossilization of billions of marine invertebrates, you find smashed and squashed together in a frenzy all over the world.
That is simply not what the fossil record looks like. You pride yourself on the fact that your flood hypothesis accounts for what you think the fossil record looks like, but you cannot account for what the fossil record actually looks like.
And this is a curious thing about creationists that I have often noticed. You somehow manage to be obsessed with science without actually being interested in it. The fossil record exists, we can go and look at it, it's fascinating. But while you are terribly keen to explain it in terms of your favorite mythology, you've never bothered to find out what it actually looks like. You're not that interested in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Portillo, posted 09-09-2012 3:02 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 212 of 226 (673215)
09-16-2012 1:46 PM


Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
Well, I arranged this.
Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo. By my request, it is set up to be wide-ranging and broadly-focused, and to be about all concepts in "flood geology". Also, for my fellow science fans, I would like you to abide by my request and let Portillo set out his ideas first.
From here forwards, anything about anything except Australian fauna really is off-topic, because we now have a general thread where we can discuss Portillo's ideas about "flood geology".
OK?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 216 of 226 (692427)
03-02-2013 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by CoolBeans
03-02-2013 11:02 PM


You cant say it would be unbiblical ...
Well you can, 'cos it is. Genesis 8 makes the sequence of events perfectly clear. First the Ark grounds on Mount Ararat, then the waters recede, then Noah lets the animals out. If he went to Australia first, the waters wouldn't have receded, and the only way he could have got them to Australia as such would be by tying weights to their feet and dropping them on it. Besides which Genesis 8 says that when he disembarked from the Ark "everything that moves on land came out of the ark".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by CoolBeans, posted 03-02-2013 11:02 PM CoolBeans has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by CoolBeans, posted 03-03-2013 12:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 225 of 226 (692522)
03-04-2013 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by CoolBeans
03-03-2013 12:08 AM


He could have build another boat
Any imaginary person could have built an imaginary boat after the imaginary flood and faked up biogeography to make it look like evolutionists are right. But why would they want to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by CoolBeans, posted 03-03-2013 12:08 AM CoolBeans 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