|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I’m not doing any of that. Why don’t you try being honest for once?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Yawn. It is a fact that the abundance of fossils is too great to be reasonably explained by the Flood, and it’s certainly come up here before - in threads you have participated in - and you have no reasonable answer. It is certainly NOT true that the Flood is any better than the conventional explanation and you have no argument for that either despite presenting it as a fact.
It is a fact that there is an order to the fossil record that rules out the Flood as a viable explanation and you have no reasonable excuse for not knowing that after the discussions you have participated in. Likewise it is a fact that the Flood fails to explain the geological record. Evaporites, for instance are not exactly likely to form in the middle of a Flood at all. And you should know that too from past discussions here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: As I said this has previously been discussed. I note that - despite making the initial claim - you have produced no reason to think that the abundance is what we should expect from the Flood. Making ad hoc claims about the Biblical context hardly helps you - and I note that the idea that the entire land mass was livable is hardly relevant to crinoids, the example I mentioned.
quote: At the cost of reducing the amount of space for land life. But you are still arguing in generalities, without making any real case. At the least you have demonstrated that you have no sound basis for your original claim. You would think that after years of making that particular assertion you would have something better than that.
quote: Your inability to understand the conventional view is hardly an argument in your favour. Spouting nonsense is not a convincing argument either.
quote: Evaporites only form when large amounts of salty water evaporate. That is not going to happen during the Flood, Nor is it likely to happen underground.
quote: And that is an outright lie. The order is an observed fact.
quote: None of these assertions change the fact that there is an observed order in the fossil record.
quote: If you could actually show that you would be addressing the topic of the thread! So come on. Let’s have an actual argument against the existence of the order in the fossil record. Or are you just going to go on with denial and excuses ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It is quite clear that it is an ad hoc assumption. It is quite clear that you are making no attempt to quantify how much additional life should be present. And certainly you are making absolutely no attempt to show that the Flood is in any way a better explanation of the abundance of fossils.
quote: That is my point. You are repeating assertions that have been thoroughly discredited in past discussions. It IS all there. You have no reasonable answers. You aren’t doing anyone any good. If you haven’t got anything worth saying, better to not say anything.
quote: That’s just silly. For a start the specific example I gave was crinoids that live on the sea bed. You can’t expand the sea bed without covering land. And of course, if you have more water - all else being equal - it will cover more land. Just more ad hoc excuses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: That is untrue. You have NEVER made any serious analysis of fossil abundance, not attempted to show that the Flood is a better explanation for it. In your edit you quote a figure of 43% more land space - although there is no sign that figure is based on anything more than assumption. Even if it had a solid basis it is meaningless until related to the actual fossil abundance, which you have not done.
quote: In other words you expect us to accept your assertions even if you cannot support them and even if we have solid grounds for rejecting them. Pointing to an observed fact, like the order in the fossil record is not silly. Calling it an illusion or a made-up concept - without any support whatsoever IS silly. Very silly.
quote: Really ? What is nonsensical about the fact that crinoids are very common fossils or that they lived on the sea floor ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: As I said, it’s based on assumption. You haven’t shown that there were no deserts or high mountains (and where would species adapted to those environments live if there were none ?)
quote: So you jumped to a conclusion without checking the facts. This is supposed to help your case ?
quote: It’s enough for you because you aren’t interested in the truth of the matter. If you were then of course you would need to consider the actual abundance of fossils.
quote: You are making assumptions about the state of my knowledge, ignoring past discussion and displaying a remarkable degree of hypocrisy. Unless you know these things - and you clearly don’t - what right do you have to claim that the Flood is a good explanation of fossil abundance ?
quote: Really ? What reason would that be ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I don’t think that relying on highly questionable inferences from the Bible is at all reasonable in the context of this discussion. Not that it matters when you still have no figures anyway.
quote: But they are not uninhabitable by animals at all. They may be less hospitable but animals do live in mountains and deserts today, and the fossil record certainly shows animals found in desert environments in the past. The guy you quoted was very likely referring to human habitation - and likely large-scale human habitation at that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Regardless the number needs to be taken into account (and not just with convenient guesses)
quote: What salient point ? You certainly haven’t produced any figures for fossil abundance or offered any reason to think that the actual abundance is better explained by the Flood. You would think that after repeating this claim for so many years you would have something more than a guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No it isn’t. And we know that. If you take a very superficial look at the fossil record it looks like something the Flood might have done. But that’s it. And you know that. That is the whole of your case. It’s hardly adequate even as it stands. There’s nothing in it that you wouldn’t reasonably expect if the mainstream view were true. And if you don’t realise that you must be remarkably dim. But, of course taking deeper look at the evidence - which needs to be done if you are to make a real case - explodes your claim. So of course you don’t do that, you refuse to talk about it. Instead you resort to this arrogant bullying deception.
quote: It takes a bizarre sort of mind to think that this aggressive dishonesty will work here when it has failed so often before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Well that’s pretty ridiculous to start with. You might as well count the graves in a large cemetery and attribute it to the Flood. And fossilisation doesn’t need any system other then the ordinary workings of nature. Call it Rube Goldbergish If you like but the fact that it exists makes it a foolish objection.
quote: You seem to forget that most strata are deposited by water in the mainstream view, too. But the sequences produced by transgression and regression, for instance speak of long timescales, not a single year-long Flood. And there’s plenty more.
quote: Let us know if you ever come up with any remotely sensible support for this silliness.
quote: Certainly not. Inventing silly strawmen hardly helps your case. Perhaps you should try remembering past discussions where various people have attempted to explain it to you.
quote: And there is a complete inversion of the truth. If you could set aside your crew convictions and actually think about it you would see that you are the one posting preposterous nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Since Faith is complaining that her arguments don’t get fairly treated I am going to look at this one again.
quote: Now in actual fact buried landscapes only turn into rock when they are deeply buried. This takes a long time. Way above it on the (then) present-day surface is where the animals will live. And yes it could be quite different. The landscape does change over time. Deserts expand, the sea transgresses the land or regresses to expose areas which were underwater, glaciers roll across the landscape carving valleys and so on. Now I certainly can’t see anything preposterous there and Faith certainly hasn’t thought about it. I remember her question of where will the animals live? Which animals? The ones who used to live on the buried landscape and died long, long ago? The animals that are happily leaving on the then-present surface, who will be completely unaffected ? Now THAT is preposterous. Of course the fraction that Faith actually puts this forward when she doesn’t actually have any real criticism - or understanding of the view she calls preposterous is a pretty clear indication of how reliable her judgements are. Faith’s reaction to this is fairly predictable. But I can bet that the one thing it won’t involve is serious thought. It should. She should seriously think about just how much her own prejudices and lack of thought cause her to go so badly wrong. But she won’t
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: As you know there are buried landscapes that are very far from flat. While the compression of lithification should reduce the relief somewhat, I’d expect only those landscapes that were flat when buried to remain flat. Even then, river channels, for instance are hardly rare. And don’t forget that high areas are typically subject to erosion rather than deposition. As most strata represent seabed rather than landscape this really is rather a silly question without actual examples.
quote: Likely because of the terrain features that you’re ignoring. The type of rock is also relevant, no doubt.
quote: As you should know from the discussion of Walther’s law, different environments produce different types of sediment. Although it should be pointed out that formations and even strata can contain multiple types of rock.
quote: Your assumptions about the geological record are wrong. And you really ought to know that by now.
quote: The sequences associated with transgression do exactly that, don’t they?
quote: I may be required to explain features of the actual geological record, which includes buried features like large monadnocks, canyons and riverbeds. But I am not required to explain your imaginary version of it. Perhaps you should have thought of that before making a fool of yourself.
quote: It is certainly associated with it - even in the recent quote where you suggest the land suddenly turning to rock while the creatures are living on it. But thanks for admitting that you have proposed truly preposterous arguments - that even you could have seen were preposterous, if you had bothered to think about it.
quote: Different sediments are not a problem, as you really ought to know. And no, the buried rock doesn’t have to be straight and flat because not all the real strata in the geological column are straight and flat.
quote: Amazing. Right after I explained exactly how it is escaped, after you admit that your argument was preposterous you repeat it! There is no bare rock in the scenario described. The material turning to rock is deeply buried - the pressure from the burial is an essential part of the process - and the present day surface is NOT deeply buried and NOT turning to rock. Now maybe your idea of a fair hearing requires me to believe idiotic falsehoods that I have just refuted, but unless it does you have no complaint here!
quote: You’ve just repeated a ridiculous falsehood that I had exposed as a ridiculous falsehood and complained that you weren’t getting a fair hearing because I didn’t believe it! Now THAT is mental incompetence. Disagreeing with your false assumptions is not (although I would love to see you try to explain why it is - am I meant to suppress knowledge that you don’t like or just lie for you ? Which is it?) In the end I must congratulate you for an attempting a reply - it is more than I expected of you, although the ridiculous final attack was exactly what I expected. Too bad for you that you didn’t bother to think things through properly and ended up embarrassing yourself badly - again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: In reality I requested that you showed that there was an actual physical situation that matched your claims, since we know for a fact that - to be generous to you - there are things that appear to be buried terrain features and sometimes very large ones. That IS the actual physical situation and you are the one ignoring it. Now maybe there is a supposedly-terrestrial formation or stratum that is unreasonably flat and of implausibly constant thickness. But I don’t have to deal with things you think might exist. So I asked for examples. This is how debate works. You have to support your claims, not attack your opponent for disagreeing with your unsupported opinions.
quote: Which just shows that you can’t take a fair and honest assessment of your arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: As usual you are jumping the gun and talking in generalities that may well not apply. Surely it is better to talk about actual examples so we can get the facts right.
quote: Is mud a single sediment ? If not then what do you make of mudstone ?
quote: It seems that I have to point out again that not all strata are flat - some of them to a quite dramatic extent. Also that the places that will be buried will tend to be flat, because they are areas of deposition, not erosion.
quote: Again you are being too vague to show any real problem. Are any of these terrestrial deposits at all ? If they aren’t now can they be relevant ?
quote: Why would that matter ? If it isn’t buried it isn’t going to become rock anyway.
quote: Because obviously we don’t get beaches or deserts or oolitic ooze or swamps etc etc etc on the planet you come from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And you are going to point at an ancient seabed and demand that I explain how a landscape turned into that when it was never anything of the sort ? No. Real examples please, not unfounded assumptions.
quote: I realise now that you have serious mental problems so I shan’t call you a liar. Nevertheless that is certainly not true. Remember that the Shimuno quartzite includes monadnocks up to 240m high. 790 feet in Imperial measures. That is not, by any means flat.
quote: By which you mean that you are going to run away because I won’t mindlessly agree with your false assertions. Oh you probably deluded yourself into believing that you aren’t running away because you don’t have a real case and you are going to get crushed again. But that’s what you are doing. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024