|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Does Berthault actually demonstrate anything more than deposition on a slope (which you vehemently denied), Walther’s law and hydrodynamic sorting ? All of which your opponents already accept ?
I would also ask - since you are so keen on pointing out the extent of some of the larger formations - what makes you think Berthaults small-scale experiments would scale up to the extent required ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The thing that makes your efforts nightmarish is you. Your method is to do everything you can to pretend that you are right. Without making anything like the effort you would need to BE right. To mention just one example from this thread, you literally tried to argue that a fantasy you made up was sufficient to disprove conventional geology. And that is not even the stupidest thing you’ve done in this discussion. Your false accusations against your opponents are, of course, the opposite of the truth. Trying to pretend that ridiculous falsehoods are true is neither smart nor honest. But it’s what you want. Instead of trying to blame everyone else for the fact that you are wrong all the time perhaps you might let go of your delusional pride and admit to your own failings instead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
If you won’t deal with the problem then you will be stuck with the consequences.
If you make ridiculously false claims they will be shot down. The solution is not to make ridiculously false claims. I know that that isn’t easy for you, being trapped in an irrational apologetic mindset. But even recognising your problem would go a long way. Denial and evasion are not solutions. They are just excuses to avoid accepting responsibility for your own mistakes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Unfortunately for you I’m not wrong.
I’ve already pointed out examples in Message 954
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In fact you make completely ridiculous mistakes, which anyone seriously considering the scenario would not. And the real evidence hardly supports your scenario. For instance, even if we restrict ourselves to the Grand Canyon area the evidence indicates a number of tectonic events, widely separated in time. And there is plenty of other evidence that kills your scenario, yet almost nothing that supports it over the conventional view.
quote: And that is another of those ridiculous mistakes. You would have to be seriously deluded to consider your model anything more than a desperate rationalisation, unworthy of serious consideration. Seriously. Go back and look at this thread. Look at all the claims you’ve failed to support. Look at all the rationalising you have to do, and how ridiculous it all is. And yet you dare to suggest that any smart and honest person would agree with you ? Really? Why ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: And here you are claiming to know something that is ridiculously false. Can you prove that the tilt of the supergroup occurred at the same time as the Kaibab uplift ?Or are you reduced to making wildly implausible ad hoc speculations to deny the evidence to the contrary ? (Hint. It’s the latter) Complaining that you can’t get me to believe your crazy delusions hardly shows that I have a problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Maybe. But when there is very strong evidence to the contrary - and there certainly is - it is very difficult to overcome it. Wild ad hoc assumptions are nowhere good enough. And really, what major parts of your scenario have you actually proved ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I will note that this doesn’t actually make sense. The age is from the date of deposition, so this would be claiming that the material that was deposited first was deposited on top of material that was deposited later. And of course, the timescales involved in Berthault’s experiments will obviously be far too short to be of any interest in geologist or palaeontologists. A difference of even a few days would hardly matter. I’m guessing that this is just more hydrodynamic sorting - introducing first fine material then, a little later, some coarser material that will settle quicker. Which doesn’t really work if fossils are included unless it is assumed that the fossil’s hydrodynamic properties just happen to match that of the associated sediment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
And I say Faith’s Flood because very little of it is in the Bible.
In the Bible, the Flood doesn’t scour the land down to bedrock. The rising waters eventually cover the mountains or high hills (depending on the translation). Air-breathing life is wiped out within 40 days. (Genesis 7 18-23) In Faith’s Flood huge amounts of sediment are washed off the land, sorted, rapidly transported and deposited. Faith insists that this mustn’t be called violent - not because it would be an understatement but because it makes it obviously implausible that life could survive. And yet according to Faith it did, all over the world. And came out and left tracks when - in the middle of the Flood - the water somehow drained away from a region. Another thing not mentioned in the Bible, and not exactly something that would be expected. On top of this, when the Flood came back, it managed not to erase the tracks. Even if there were not massive amounts of other evidence against the Flood this alone should be enough to call it into question for anyone but the most fanatically dogmatic believer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Except that neither of these things have truly been established. I guess you can nitpick over evidence for the Flood but there isn’t anything very good and the evidence against is pretty strong. On the other hand it has been established that the Flood cannot account for the geological or fossil records. Yet here you are arguing about it all the time. So, according to you, it would be stupid for us to even consider your arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: The fact of the fossil order was discovered by very early geologists working out the relationships between the strata. Evolutionary theory was in part based on the observed order. You are just wrong as usual.
quote: Your belief is thoroughly at odds with the facts of this thread. In reality you rely on inventing fantasies to explain away the evidence against your views. Your reason for doing so is that you believe that the Flood is established as true. Which is pretty obviously circular. For the Flood to be established as the cause of the geological and fossil records you would need good answers to the points Percy listed. And if it isn’t established as the cause you can’t use that as an excuse to dismiss strong evidence to the contrary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But that is not at all true. You are just assuming that the evidence supports your fantasy even though it’s been shown that it does not. Even though you have to invent bizarre fantasies to explain away the contrary evidence. How can you possibly believe that the evidence supports your idea when you’ve tried and failed to produce that evidence ? When you know Of contrary evidence you have no good explanation for ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Nonsense. Angular uncomforities exist, and they have evidence of occurring before the layers above were laid down. The very fact that you have to try to explain away the evidence away proves it exists. And that your explanations are so implausible - and lack evidence - hardly helps. And if we consider the Grand Canyon supergroup, the fault that splits it clearly came after the tilt - as shown by the fact that the sections divided by the fault have the same tilt. That the step of the fault is not at all present in the upper layers is evidence that the fault occurred before those layers were present. And, of course, the curve produced by the uplift does not at all follow the tilt of the Supergroup so those didn’t occur at the same time either. You can’t defend your habit of telling obvious falsehoods by telling more obvious falsehoods, Faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: A nice attempt at evasion. However, I like my interpretation because it fits very well with the evidence. You like yours despite the fact that it doesn’t. The evidence, therefore is on my side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: There is a huge difference between us having no evidence and the evidence strongly favouring our position. Thanks for admitting that you got it badly wrong.
quote: Then demonstrate it. Demonstrate that the tilt of the Grand Canyon Supergroup occurred after all the strata were laid down. Just remember that making up wild stories demonstrates nothing more than your imagination.
quote: No, that’s just another obvious falsehood. Faith, why do you think that saying these things is a good idea at all? This is how you create your nightmare. 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