Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2017 11:58 PM
435 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr (2 members, 433 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,959 Year: 6,565/21,208 Month: 2,326/2,634 Week: 514/572 Day: 61/70 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2930313233
34
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 496 of 503 (688240)
01-21-2013 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 491 by Granny Magda
01-18-2013 11:37 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
That's not an example of Occam's Razor. You have no way of knowing that marine reptiles would out-compete cetaceans. Perhaps the mammals would out-compete the reptiles, you can only guess. And your guesses on this topic do not have the greatest track record so far.

That's your opinion. If you were more aware of the lack of evidence for the basic mechanisms of evolution, you would not be so confident that sudden appearances of new species were caused by evolving. Evolutionists have scanty evidence for the theory behind new additional functional novel genes being created, as bacteria moved from a simple organism to organisms containing many thousands of genes. In this respect please read this thread, from page 15.
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=16394&mpp=2...

You have to prove a gene was duplicated (rather than two identical genes - dual function - and one was lost). Then you have to prove that gene is protein coding and developed a new unique function that adds fitness to the organism. Without that proof evolution is just a fantasy, with that proof its an outside possibility that something could have evolved once.

Occam's Razor favours the explanation with the fewest assumptions. Your series of tortured excuses and guess is far from that

Lol, the assumption of evolution involves a 1000 gene (or even 1 gene) organism becoming a 22000 gene organism through no observable process. In addition to wade through millions of extinct fossils to find one that appears like a transition, proves nothing. All it proves is that there have been millions of extinctions on earth, that is the observable fact. It so easy to look at one fossil that has some matching features to a modern species and claim a "transitionary fossil" but you would need a whole series of changes in a definitely dated sequence to make that claim. No-one has made such a proven claim in this thread, its guess work.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Granny Magda, posted 01-18-2013 11:37 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 497 of 503 (688241)
01-21-2013 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by RAZD
01-18-2013 12:58 PM


Re: dating accuracy issues -- challenged
Will get there one day, but am a little put off by your requirements for posting evidence. If you dropped your requirements to the kind of discussions that are acceptable on this thread (publications, wikipedia, deductive reasoning) then that would be easier. I find the scientific community is unfortunately biased through accepting the theory of evolution too early when recent DNA sequencing is not providing enough support for the hypothesis of evolution. (ie increased DNA complexity of new and uniquely functional active coding genes within an organism is not observed to add fitness)

Due to this bias I cannot be restricted to publications of the scientific community only.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2013 12:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 498 of 503 (688246)
01-21-2013 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by Dr Adequate
01-17-2013 6:59 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
Of course they're mammals and have names. Dorudon, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Protocetus, Maiacetus

To me those represent a number of extinct animals. 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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-17-2013 6:59 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2013 6:48 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 499 of 503 (688247)
01-21-2013 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by herebedragons
01-19-2013 8:43 PM


Re: Geological column and the flood
Now they seem to think that this disproves conventional geology and provides support to flood geology. 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? Doesn't the fact that the different strata are dispersed throughout the world and not distributed evenly actually disprove flood geology rather than support it?

My view is not standard flood geology, but the assumption in the common view and my view, is that there is no uniformity. The lack of uniformity is more core to our beliefs than evolutionists because of our belief that most fauna/flora were in simultaneous existence.

Thus there will be a patch of so-called Permian fossils, then a thousand km away a patch of so-called Carboniferous fossils , then 1000 km away a patch of Jurassic fossils. This fits in with our belief they existed simultaneously. There is however an assumption that the lowest lying got covered by flood sediment first, ie a general trend of bottom feeders, followed by fish, followed by amphibians, followed by land animals.

My own belief is more consistent with the geologic column, but even so I believe there were huge overlaps of say Triassic fauna living simultaneously with Eocene fauna, but in vastly separated environments (dry and hot - cold and wet, even today there is little overlap of the fauna from those two climates). The same applies to Eocene marine fauna, certain fossils will be predetermined to be Eocene fossils according to the standard evolutionary model, but could have easily been early Jurassic, because of misunderstandings about compressed timeframes, I'm referring here to say the Egyptian "Eocene" limestone which could have actually existed during the early age of the dinosaurs.

I personally believe the Permian and the Carboniferous are not necessarily sequential either, a portion of the Permian just representing flood fossils that washed over the in situ carboniferous fossils. I'm still trying to investigate whether generally the late Permian fossils were more disarticulated revealing catastrophe, rather than the more intact carboniferous fossils which were easily fossilised swamp dwellers.

Because Permian fossils are either found on their own, or above Carboniferous fossils, but not below, its so easy to assume they were a later period, the simultaneous option is not often considered.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


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

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15472
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(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 yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 3 days)
Posts: 2300
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 501 of 503 (688257)
01-21-2013 10:41 AM


Summation
This thread was an opportunity for Fludists to present the evidence for the Flood, Flood Geology or anything of that nature. Sadly, Portillo declined to join us.

Mindspawn's made an effort, but his problem is threefold;

1) He can't present any evidence for the flood because there isn't any.

2) Even if there were evidence for the flood, mindspawn hasn't got the tiniest smidgen of an iota of a fraction of a clue what he's talking about. Even the most elementary facts of geology and biology seem beyond him. This is not intended as an insult - I certainly don't claim to be an expert in any of these topics - but the truth remains that even if mindspawn were to happen across evidence for the Flood he would be woefully unqualified to recognise it as such. Almost every single argument he has made has been based in misunderstood internet articles, factual errors and creationist propaganda.

If you're going to challenge the status quo in science, it behoves you to have some understanding of the subject you're challenging. Mindspawn hasn't got that. I respect his efforts to back up his arguments, but the truth is that he's wasting his time tilting against windmills.

3) Finding himself adrift without any kind of normal scientific argument mindspawn has hit upon a new method of debate; making shit up.

Got a half-assed theory to promote? Are people spoiling it by pointing out how far removed from reality it is? Then just make something up! Need to explain a lack of whales? Just make something up! An inland sea should do nicely. Need to explain why there are fish where you had claimed there would be no fish? Simple, just make up an excuse based how you imagine fish might behave. Don't let the fact that you know nothing about fish stand in your way! And when people point out that this too is wrong, just make up some more guff to explain why the last lot didn't work out. Then, throw in some more made-up-stuff, to get yourself out of the screw-ups with that excuse... With a bit of luck, by the time you've worked your way through a string of a dozen or so excuses and dodges, everyone will have forgotten what you were supposed to be talking about in the first place.

Creating fanciful imaginary scenarios to explain away one's uncomfortable lack of evidence is not science. It's not even debate. It's just making shit up. Only evidence counts. Ill-informed speculation and wishful thinking don't count.

This thread, supposedly about the Flood has meandered down a series of rabbit-holes to little avail. Certainly it's been a long time since anyone tried to provide some evidence for the Flood. Specifically, mindspawn has not presented any evidence for a global flood at the P-T boundary (or at least, he has presented any evidence that was correct). As of his latest reply to me he has abandoned any attempt to make an argument for the Flood and simply resorted to a standard creationist whine about evolution.

If this thread has proved anything it is that geology is a big subject and not an easy one. It's not a topic where the average joe is going to be able to overturn the status quo by googling a few key terms. Despite mindspawn's laudable efforts, he still has no clear model for his flood. Perhaps it would be better if we all learned as much as possible about a scientific subject before presuming to challenge it.

Mutate and Survive


    
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 502 of 503 (688260)
01-21-2013 11:43 AM


Thanks everyone, I really enjoyed the discussion. As Granny Magda pointed out so eloquently, my theory is adjusting as I go along. I believe its gaining in strength even if those participating in the thread feel the theory is weak because it is developing.

The truth is the PT boundary was a dramatic event with all the ingredients for a worldwide flood. There was the melting ice caps, melting glaciation, huge worldwide sediment movements, enlarging of Pangea (low-lying landmass peaked in area, oceans were compressed). There is a major proven transgression and regression then at the PT boundary. Some tried to brush off the evidence I presented of this major sediment movement across the world, but anyone researching this will see endless evidence of unprecedented sedimentation at the PT boundary, because this is proven fact, no matter the cause.

I feel the only good points disputing the flood hypothesis presented, are that
1) the worldwide mass movements of sedimentation could have been a result of loss of vegetation and not flooding, erosion occurring after the worldwide loss of vegetation. This I believe is an alternative valid evidence based hypothesis worth considering
2) the Appalachians were apparently too high to be covered by excess melt waters. I asked for proof that they were that high, the alternative is that they were covered by eroding floodwaters during the flood, and only subsequently rose to current heights. I never saw the supporting geological evidence for high Appalachians in the pre-boundary era.

Other discussions were more related to peripherary topics, there was no conclusive evidence presented that any large terrestrial animals have a lot more than 28 alelles in areas of the genome where mutation rates are normal. I feel generally the reduced number of alleles found in "ark animals" supports the ark theory. Neither was conclusive evidence presented of any sort of transitional fossils outside of evolutionary assumptions, although the thread ended too quickly to end that discussion.

Neither did anyone challenge my premise that changing conditions regularly cause niche environments to dominate, and the alternative conclusion that the new dominant fauna/flora evolved; is based on as yet unproven processes (fairytale speculation regarding some aspects of novel genes), and on so-called "transitional fossils" that are really imaginative speculation concerning numerous fossils of extinct species.

Dr A presented the usual "scientists say" comment regarding transitional fossils without presenting any evidence or links for his confident conclusion that whales have a history of developing transitional fossils accurately sequenced according to confirmed dates. Anything less evidence based is speculation, using evolution to prove evolution - ie circular reasoning.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 503 of 503 (688282)
01-21-2013 4:21 PM


Summary, mostly about ages
I can summarize my participation on this thread with these quotes:

Message 343: And below this (P-T) boundary we are not missing just fossils of humans, but of the whole mammal clade.

Message 374: Rather than just assert things like this, why don't you take a whack at explaining the correlations provided in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.

Message 413: As we see in Message 411 there was no error in the rock dating measurements at all, nor any correction of date measurements in your source, rather the change is in the understanding of when tectonic forces were in action in the formation of mountains, specifically in southern Mexico.

Curiously, science is based on evaluation of the best information we have available. Sometimes that information is incomplete due to gaps in the evidence available, and when any new information becomes available to fill those gaps -- as we see here in southern Mexico -- then there is either the possibility of confirming previous thought or of changing previous thought -- as we see here on the timing of the movement of tectonic plates in this area.

It is fine to be skeptical, but you then need to investigate, to research the information, to see if your cursory impressions match fact..

So again, perhaps it is time for you to actually investigate this, and you can start by reading Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Message 487: Curiously, we do not need to use radiometric dating to know that the earth is very old -- much older than any "young earth" concept.

Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Not one young earth creationist has explained these correlation in the nine years since it was posted here.

Not one. Most don't even try, because the information is too consilient and they do not have any model to explain correlations from the pseudoscientists.

There are basically two valid conclusions from the evidence:

  1. all objective evidence is illusion and nothing is known (including the existence of god/s, bibles, etc) or
  2. the objective evidence is due to the actual age of the earth.

Here is your challenge: explain the correlations, or stop talking about errors in dating as if that made a young earth possible.

While it may not seem that this continual reference to evidence for an old earth is not directly related to the topic, many of the methods for measuring age listed would have been interrupted by a flood and would have clearly -- and consistently -- marked when that would have occurred.

This covers several hundred thousand years, well beyond any known YEC scenario. That there is no such interference in the chronologies, means that the flood did not occur in their time span. In other words, this is empirical evidence that no world wide flood occurred within the last several hundred thousand years.

Note: mindspawn has again been invited to participate on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread in both Message 220 and Message 224.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : last line added as no more replies allowed


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
RewPrev1
...
2930313233
34
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017