The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

I see that Faith is proposing a thread to discuss this subject. In her OP she shows a cartoon of some 'strata' dropping onto a brontosaurus. This is extremely reminiscent of times Faith has tried to tell us that Darwin's theory does not include variation; just selection.

No. I am referring to your insistence that Darwin's Origin of Species described the formation of species by selection without requiring a source of variation for selection to operate on despite being offered numerous quotes from the text of Origin of Species.

Yes, but without dropping the following conclusion: I'll leave off pointing out what you are ignoring here until we see if your new thread gets started.

That's certainly what science predicts for some definition of the word, early. But if you believe that there has been a substantial accretion on earth since the time of say, dinosaurs walking on earth, there simply isn't any evidence of that level of asteroid bombardment.

Actually, you guys are saying slightly different things. What PaulK is saying is that there is only one column that is a kind of composite of what is found world wide. You are clearly saying that there are different columns in different places.

Is that correct? Perhaps the question is one of semantics. The column does not exist as a composite of rocks from all eras, which appears to be the way sites like ICR and AIG refer to the column, but the term does appear in scientific sources as well, although the meaning is a bit different.http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens1110/geotime.htm

quote:

---

The Geologic Column

​

Over the past 150 years detailed studies of rocks throughout the world based on stratigraphic correlation have allowed geologists to correlate rock units and break them into time units. The result is the geologic column (on next page), which breaks relative geologic time into units of known relative age.

---

According to this source, the geological column consists of correlated time units with a description of the life in those units and not rocks.The definition above may be informal. The term geological column as strictly defined refers to the geology of rocks found in a locality. So there is a grand canyon geological column and a north dakota geological column. In that sense, there is no "The Geological Column". Creationist sites always blur the distinction between a geological column of rocks and a column of time units. Given that their idea is that the whole thing was formed by a single Flood, perhaps that blurring is understandable.

A quick review of mindspawn's last appearance shows him running away from the losing end of a debate about why dating was wrong. So yeah, "science" as usual.

Perhaps if you were to speak less authoritatively about subjects you do not know well, you would gain more respect. What I will note is that I provided you with all of the evidence you asked about nuclear reactions, neutron flux measurements etc, and that you had no response. It is easy to use other posts as an excuse not to respond to legitimate points being made.

The exact numbers cited in Genesis, including the fact that there are two sets of numbers that may or may not be reconcilable has been discussed at length here. You are so full of yourself.

I'll bet you do think that.

What the text of Genesis actually said was the following:

quote:

---

You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

---

If the text has the meaning you claim, it could not hinge on the translation of the word two that you have given. Let's note that you describe a translation to 'two' then insist on reading it as pairs. Secondly, your rendering does not fit with the rest of the text as show above. For at least those reasons, it seems to me that your argument is just bad. You appear to be trying to finesse the verse into your intended meaning.And that comes from a person, me, who generally insists that there is no problem with the text as written.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Of course he cannot and will not do that.All of mindspawn's arguments in this thread, and in other of his threads including the carbon dating thread, and the general radiometric dating thread consist of mindspawn describing the extent of his rationale for holding onto his beliefs while continuing to maintain grasp onto science-like phrasing in order to convey some kind of legitmacy.In short, he's clinging to any tiny hole in the evidence or in human knowledge as a confirmation that he is right. Such techniques require him to apply the kind of double standard we see here. And if your goal is to question the findings of others and not to persuade others or to question your own beliefs, a double standard works just fine.I'd call it a funky kind of 'God of the gaps' arguments with an extra kicker. mindspawn attempts to wedge gaps into stuff that human's actually do know to a high degree of certainty. That's why he prefaces so many statements with "I believe". In short, Mindspwan's arguments are not for you, they are for mindspawn.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I notice that like every other creationist to walk the face of the earth, you claim to be able to explain the order of fossils without actually discussing any details regarding the order of fossils.To date, no creationist has managed to explain why the order of fossils matches that predicted by evolution. Instead they point to one trend or another while failing to actually describe what is seen and why their order matches that.I maintain that you are a blustering fraud. I challenge you to explain the order and appearance of fossils as actually seen using your ice cap melting nonsense or to be declared forever a loony just as you suggest.

Seriously, you complain about insults in response to a thread where you accuse folks of being oblivious to some stupidity that you consider obvious. Apparently you are a loon.You don't owe me anything. Proving that you are not a moron would be something to do for yourself. Again, just explaining some gross trend without covering the details which don't fit the pattern you describe is what I am accusing you of doing. Your post here doesn't do any better.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The above sentence describes classic mindspawn nonsense. According to the BS he has posted in these forums, radiometric dating is wrong in a way that requires us to currently live in a universal, deadly neutron flux. He finds confirmation in sources that say that neutron fluxes are hard to measure with high precision. In other words, we may only know the neutron flux to a couple of significant figures, so therefore the flux might be ten orders of magnitude off?He also claimed that varve chronology, which confirms at least C14 dating was off because of 'salt tides' despite the fact that the periodicity of the tide cycles would not produce the result he claimed, and despite that his own references indicated that his explanation was bogus.And here is his made up natural history all of which fails to even address any of the geological record except the particular point he is focused on, and which is primarily excuses for why there is no evidence. That coupled with his "sparse" equals "none" arguments regarding the fossil record.I understand why many folks find his posts entertaining. For the most part he does not use PRATTs which alone is refreshing. But there are good reasons why nobody would repeat his ideas a thousand times. His ideas do not survive the light brought by even cursory inspection.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.