Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 474 of 503 (687784)
01-16-2013 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by mindspawn
01-16-2013 1:22 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
I said fish are not found in the anoxic conditions of the triassic, this is because they are found in the oxygenated regions.
Unlike the whales.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by mindspawn, posted 01-16-2013 1:22 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 480 of 503 (687840)
01-17-2013 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 478 by mindspawn
01-17-2013 2:22 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
You lack transitionary fossils ...
This is, of course, not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 2:22 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 6:11 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 481 of 503 (687841)
01-17-2013 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 479 by mindspawn
01-17-2013 2:49 AM


Re: dating accuracy issues
No, its not one of those contexts. Its not that all of science is wrong, its just that a few categories of science are based on
1) radiometric dating (does have scientific backing, but too many assumptions and also a head in the sand approach)
2) evolution (circular reasoning)
This is, of course, not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 2:49 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 483 of 503 (687844)
01-17-2013 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 482 by mindspawn
01-17-2013 6:11 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Sure.
Now, your turn. Show us evidence for that isolated sea in which all the whales were hiding until the Eocene. Oh, right, you can't, 'cos that's imaginary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 6:11 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 6:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 485 of 503 (687848)
01-17-2013 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by mindspawn
01-17-2013 6:46 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
C'mon you can do better than that.
You said show you evidence, I took you literally.
What are those? Are they mammals, have you got names and links for me to look into this a bit more.
Of course they're mammals and have names. Dorudon, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Protocetus, Maiacetus, etc.
Seriously I would like to get into this because the information I had researched said the following ...
Yeah, well, perhaps you shouldn't limit your research to looking for the craziest loon you can find on the Internet.
Now, your turn. Show us evidence for that isolated sea in which all the whales were hiding until the Eocene. Oh, right, you can't, 'cos that's imaginary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 6:46 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by mindspawn, posted 01-21-2013 3:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 494 of 503 (688169)
01-20-2013 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by herebedragons
01-19-2013 8:43 PM


Re: Geological column and the flood
I saw a creationist video that claimed that there was no actual geological column - that it only consists of fragmentary pieces scattered throughout the world.
The geological column is a summary of the stratigraphic relationships that obtain between fossils, it's not claimed to be a thing.
Obviously in any particular location deposition will not have been continuous and erosion will have occurred, so there will not be a geological record corresponding to the whole of the geological column.
But if the geological layers were laid down in a world wide flood, wouldn't the layers be much more uniform and evenly distributed throughout the world?
You're talking as though "flood geology" involved investigating the geological consequences of a flood. 99% of it consists of being too stupid to understand real geology. Then explanations involving magic water are taken as being true by default.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by herebedragons, posted 01-19-2013 8:43 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 500 of 503 (688250)
01-21-2013 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by mindspawn
01-21-2013 3:12 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
To me those represent a number of extinct animals.
You're right so far. Why don't you quit while you're ahead?
If you have many animals, then a great extinction, then a few modern animals, it is easy to find a range of extinct species for every range of modern species because not many survived the extinctions. To prove a phylogenetic tree, you would have to sequence them according to subtle changes leading up to modern species, and to have the sequence radiometrically dated to reveal relative ageing of the fossils.
But they are datable. Paleontologists dated them. This is not the first time I've pointed this out, so would you please stop ignoring this fact.
We have whales with legs, then whales with hind legs that they couldn't actually walk on, then whales with no hind legs. This is all datable.
Meanwhile, you can't find an entire missing sea where they all lived together in perfect harmony but couldn't get out of until there were fish and shrimp for them to eat, something which datably happened long before there were any whales.
You can't come to terms with the facts that I've pointed out to you, you can't even put up an desperate argument that they aren't facts. You just carry on talking as though I hadn't even pointed out the facts to you. This is a forum for debate; what you are producing is merely a monologue. If you don't want to interact with people, get a blog. If you want to participate on a forum, then my facts trump the things that you imagine in your head.
Its that detailed and dated sequencing of fossils that is missing, where it is biologically obvious that there was an ancestor similar to the sperm whale recently, and then its predecessor is biologically obvious too, leading backwards in time, all dated properly. Without that, its guesswork based on a biased view of extinct fauna.
We have a datable series of intermediate forms. Where is your imaginary sea?
Until and unless you can find it, we've got more than you. We have the fossils. We win.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by mindspawn, posted 01-21-2013 3:12 AM mindspawn 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