Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 11:59 PM
263 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 262 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,321 Year: 15,144/29,783 Month: 1,088/1,502 Week: 86/492 Day: 49/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
78NextFF
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4618
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 226 of 1163 (787082)
07-03-2016 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Pressie
07-03-2016 8:23 AM


Pressie writes:

So, you agree that the Cambrian is not a 'rock layer'?

I agree that it is of no consequence. The fact is there are rocks labelled as, "Cambrian", and there are portions of rock missing that would be regarded as Cambrian because it was a purported era.

However, this assumes that the portions missing are missing. The problem with such reasoning is obvious, imagine I argued that martians had not been found on Mars because the type of evidence left would be expected from the wars the martians had. In effect, "no evidence of martians" becomes my evidence for martians. (yes, I am aware of erosional-arguments, the problem is sometimes there is no empirical evidence as to why we should infer that, it could just be a more parsimonious explanation that the cambrian is represented as in fact a neurosis.

Pressie writes:

You call it a 'minor error'? It's major. Creationists never tell the truth, mike.

When someone repeats a personal charge, coupled with a generalisation, as a bare-assertion, and then repeat it and get stuck on making personal judgements, then their argument becomes a very fallacious cocktail of codswallop we can refer to as an ad nauseam P.R.A.T.T (point refuted a thousand times).

It does not follow that creationists are liars because they interpret the evidence differently to you, nor have you provided proof you are not a liar, and are honest. Don't you know what an ad-hominem argument is yet? It is a diversion. You cannot possibly know and state the creationist is a liar just because he does not agree with you. You have to show a clear lie. If someone won't state the facts as you want them to be stated that is not a lie, it means they won't agree to your terms of debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 8:23 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 9:22 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 229 by Coyote, posted 07-03-2016 10:51 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 231 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2016 11:30 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 232 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 12:09 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 235 by 14174dm, posted 07-03-2016 12:41 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 237 by edge, posted 07-03-2016 5:40 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1903
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 227 of 1163 (787083)
07-03-2016 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by mike the wiz
07-03-2016 9:20 AM


I agree that it is of no consequence.
You're completely crazy, then. The Cambrian being a Period, not a 'rock layer', is of huge consequence.

Creationists always lie. Always.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2016 9:20 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by jar, posted 07-03-2016 10:34 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30920
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 228 of 1163 (787086)
07-03-2016 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Pressie
07-03-2016 9:22 AM


The point is Mike simply confirms once again the fact that NO Creationist has ever been able to present a model, method, process, procedure of thingamabob that can explain the fossil evidence or geological evidence or the existence of salt beds of the Green River Varves or honestly any actual physical reality found on the earth by anything other than magic.

Mike is no different than Faith or any other Creationist who has ever posted here or anywhere else for that matter.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 9:22 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 229 of 1163 (787087)
07-03-2016 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by mike the wiz
07-03-2016 9:20 AM


Interpretations?
It does not follow that creationists are liars because they interpret the evidence differently to you

Not all interpretations are of equal value.

Some, when supported by most or all of the available data are quite valuable and generally can add to new knowledge by making accurate predictions. In science, these are called theories.

Other interpretations that are contradicted by most or all of the available data are worthless except as thought exercises or models to test assumptions. But creationists aren't using their interpretations as thought exercises or models to test assumptions, they are trying to fit the real world evidence into a biblical framework--and it doesn't fit.

Don't you know what an ad-hominem argument is yet? It is a diversion.

If you look upthread a good many of your posts consist of diversions from the topic we are dealing with.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2016 9:20 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 230 of 1163 (787088)
07-03-2016 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by mike the wiz
07-03-2016 9:11 AM


As you can see, it is quite irrelevant as to what some other creationist argued, or how terrible you deemed his argument to be. It may well have been terrible, it may be that you were in fact conversing with someone akin to or similar to Hovind, nevertheless that does not affect the veracity of any arguments I make.

So do you yourself have your own distinctive explanation for the order in the fossil record distinct from that supplied by mainstream "Flood geology", or do you just want to keep on aimlessly wittering about nothing in particular?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2016 9:11 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 231 of 1163 (787089)
07-03-2016 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by mike the wiz
07-03-2016 9:20 AM


I agree that it is of no consequence. The fact is there are rocks labelled as, "Cambrian", and there are portions of rock missing that would be regarded as Cambrian because it was a purported era.

However, this assumes that the portions missing are missing. The problem with such reasoning is obvious, imagine I argued that martians had not been found on Mars because the type of evidence left would be expected from the wars the martians had. In effect, "no evidence of martians" becomes my evidence for martians. (yes, I am aware of erosional-arguments, the problem is sometimes there is no empirical evidence as to why we should infer that, it could just be a more parsimonious explanation that the cambrian is represented as in fact a neurosis.

Well, that was gibberish. If you must make a fool of yourself, could you try to do so by attempting to explain the order in the fossil record? Thanks.

It does not follow that creationists are liars because they interpret the evidence differently to you ...

They've also invented their own "evidence", while ignoring actual evidence. However, they are not necessarily liars. Most of them are probably just fools.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2016 9:20 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1903
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 232 of 1163 (787091)
07-03-2016 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by mike the wiz
07-03-2016 9:20 AM


mike writes:

It does not follow that creationists are liars because they interpret the evidence differently to you...

YEC's always lie about everything related to science.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2016 9:20 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2016 12:14 PM Pressie has responded
 Message 238 by edge, posted 07-03-2016 5:46 PM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 233 of 1163 (787092)
07-03-2016 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Pressie
07-03-2016 12:09 PM


YEC's always lie about everything.

To say that someone is lying implies that they know that what they're saying is untrue; and creationists generally don't know the first thing about the subjects they discuss so freely.

Following the distinction between immoral and amoral, one might say that creationists are not so much insincere as asincere.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 12:09 PM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 12:25 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1903
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 234 of 1163 (787093)
07-03-2016 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2016 12:14 PM


Sorry, Dr. A. I changed my sentence to 'YEC's always lie about everything related to science' while you did your response.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2016 12:14 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
14174dm
Member
Posts: 135
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


(1)
Message 235 of 1163 (787094)
07-03-2016 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by mike the wiz
07-03-2016 9:20 AM


Just to be clear on a basic idea - THE geologic column is an abstract. We have geologic columns for thousands of points on the earth.

So when we talk about missing portions of the Cambrian era, we mean that at THIS geologic column we have a specific Cambrian layer that is missing from THAT geologic column over there even though both columns have matching layers above and below the missing one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2016 9:20 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by edge, posted 07-03-2016 3:26 PM 14174dm has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4393
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 236 of 1163 (787098)
07-03-2016 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by 14174dm
07-03-2016 12:41 PM


So when we talk about missing portions of the Cambrian era, we mean that at THIS geologic column we have a specific Cambrian layer that is missing from THAT geologic column over there even though both columns have matching layers above and below the missing one.

Sometimes, I use the analogy of the geological time scale being a tape recording and geological events such as deposition, mountain building and fossil communities being the actual recording. The tape continues indefinitely, but when there is erosion it's like the tape has been erased.

I'm not sure that YECs understand this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by 14174dm, posted 07-03-2016 12:41 PM 14174dm has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4393
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 237 of 1163 (787100)
07-03-2016 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by mike the wiz
07-03-2016 9:20 AM


However, this assumes that the portions missing are missing. The problem with such reasoning is obvious, imagine I argued that martians had not been found on Mars because the type of evidence left would be expected from the wars the martians had. In effect, "no evidence of martians" becomes my evidence for martians.

The difference being that we know erosion occurs. In fact, we live on an unconformity that is presently removing huge parts of the geological record.

(yes, I am aware of erosional-arguments, the problem is sometimes there is no empirical evidence ...

Actually, there is plenty of evidence for erosion in the geological record. Geologists are trained in such a way as to recognize erosional surfaces and the products of erosion.

... as to why we should infer that, it could just be a more parsimonious explanation that the cambrian is represented as in fact a neurosis.

Except for the fact that it does occur in many places.

And the very fact that we can see it (on land) confirms that erosion is happening as we speak.

It would seem to me that the neurosis is manifest by those who live in denial of these facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2016 9:20 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4393
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 238 of 1163 (787101)
07-03-2016 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Pressie
07-03-2016 12:09 PM


YEC's always lie about everything related to science.

I am open to the possibility that most YECs are simply ignorant and dogmatic at the same time.

In a way, it is impossible for them to lie because they actually believe the stuff they preach. I have always believed that intent is an important property of a lie.

Honestly, if you put them on a lie detector, it wouldn't register. I see this phenomena in children and some disabled people. In a weird way, I feel sorry for them.

Now, there are militant YECs who are definitely to be despised. Many of them know better, but see this as a meal ticket. I don't think they are dumb enough to hang around here for very long and we have had a few examples on this and other boards where the 'big guns' were requested to join in, but didn't last very long.

They know.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 12:09 PM Pressie has not yet responded

  
14174dm
Member
Posts: 135
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 239 of 1163 (787102)
07-03-2016 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by mike the wiz
07-01-2016 4:15 PM


I believe geomorphological features are better explained by catastrophism. Especially planation and erosional remnants and inselbergs.

Great. Now the point of evcforum.net is for you to explain why you think this in contrast to standard geology, with examples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mike the wiz, posted 07-01-2016 4:15 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1483
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


(3)
Message 240 of 1163 (787113)
07-04-2016 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by NoNukes
07-02-2016 12:06 AM


Perhaps mike the wiz, ICANT, and Faith together make a great point. None of those folks subscribe to the stuff that AIG and ICR put out. In fact, I cannot remember too many folks who toe that particular line very closely visiting here in the last few years.

The question is WHY don't they subscribe to the stuff the "Big Boys" are putting out? (although Mike has pointed to several articles by ICR, so apparently he does subscribe to some extent). I mean, these are the folks doing the "science" right? People that are adamant about creationism - meaning those that equate creationism to "Biblical Christianity" (mostly young earthers) - should be staunch supporters of those institutions that have supposedly proven that their beliefs are facts. Perhaps we just get the fringe creationists here and not the mainstream types who do subscribe to the stuff AiG and ICR put out.

but I've met plenty of creationists; my family has includes lots of folks who insist that Genesis is literally correct. Most of those folks haven't looked at a picture of the Grand Canyon since high school, and they could not tell a microscope from a telescope.

I think most "creationists" fall into this category. This seems to be sort of the default positions with many Christian denominations and most people have never really given it any thought. I was in this camp when I first started exploring this issue, just assumed it was true, just assumed that someone had done the work and that it was supported by evidence, just assumed that since folks like Ham and Hovind were Christians and were defenders of the Bible, that they would tell the truth about the science behind the stories. This is why the explanations they need to present need only to sound reasonable to the average person. They don't need a lot of data or actual field work, but just a reasonable sounding explanation that is dressed up with some sciency sounding words. This gives the average creationist the illusion that their beliefs are indeed factually supported.

When we generalize about what Creationist think, we mainly mean YEC folks. But how many of those folks care about Creation Science or have ever debated with someone who knows anything about real geology?

Yeah, when I generalize about creationists, I mean YECs, and more specifically, those that believe YEC is a scientifically viable theory - so, to be precise, I am referring to creation science. I don't have too much against people who hold to a particular set of beliefs and who recognize them as such, it is those who say that creation science is equal to Biblical Christianity that I have the most issue with.

Maybe attributing any particular creation science belief to creationists in general is just wrong.

You're probably right, but... why have almost 2 million people visited AiG's Creation Museum? And why are there these types of circus shows disguised as science popping up all over the country? Because, "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." While attributing any particular creation science belief to creationists in general may be wrong, it's not because there is some "good" creation science and some "bad" creation science, it is because there is no unifying theory. Every creationist can find support somewhere for their particular, personal version of the story.

I think it would be prudent, though, to be clear in our generalizations; that the thing most of us are opposed to is not the sincerely held beliefs of individuals but the "science" that is being touted in order to support those sincerely held beliefs. And as far as I am concerned, that "science," being false, deceives those with these sincerely held beliefs.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2016 12:06 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by edge, posted 07-04-2016 2:39 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 245 by NoNukes, posted 07-05-2016 1:11 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
78NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018