Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1201 of 2887 (829453)
03-07-2018 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1191 by Faith
03-06-2018 8:43 PM


Re: Flume experiments pretty much abolish the current thinking about strata
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1191 by Faith, posted 03-06-2018 8:43 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1210 by JonF, posted 03-07-2018 5:43 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 1214 by edge, posted 03-07-2018 9:06 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1221 of 2887 (829478)
03-08-2018 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1219 by Faith
03-07-2018 10:14 PM


Re: Just a few pictures
quote:
But nobody else is as confused about what I'm saying as you are. However, the general paradigm blindness here is indeed what makes my efforts nightmarish, and my constant hope that somebody will finally be smart enough or honest enough to get it is no doubt futile.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1219 by Faith, posted 03-07-2018 10:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1222 by Faith, posted 03-08-2018 12:33 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1223 of 2887 (829480)
03-08-2018 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1222 by Faith
03-08-2018 12:33 AM


Re: Just a few pictures
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1222 by Faith, posted 03-08-2018 12:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1224 by Faith, posted 03-08-2018 1:00 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1225 of 2887 (829482)
03-08-2018 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1224 by Faith
03-08-2018 1:00 AM


Re: Just a few pictures
Unfortunately for you I’m not wrong.
I’ve already pointed out examples in Message 954

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1224 by Faith, posted 03-08-2018 1:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1226 by Faith, posted 03-08-2018 5:13 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1227 of 2887 (829487)
03-08-2018 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1226 by Faith
03-08-2018 5:13 AM


Re: Just a few pictures
quote:
I make mistakes but I am right about the overall scenario.
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:
I even believe I've given enough evidence to make the case
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1226 by Faith, posted 03-08-2018 5:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1229 by Faith, posted 03-08-2018 6:06 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1230 of 2887 (829491)
03-08-2018 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1229 by Faith
03-08-2018 6:06 AM


Re: Just a few pictures
quote:
You think the evidence supports many tectonic events in the GC, but I know I've proved that false, and I'll never get you to see that.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1229 by Faith, posted 03-08-2018 6:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1231 by Faith, posted 03-08-2018 6:34 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1232 of 2887 (829493)
03-08-2018 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1231 by Faith
03-08-2018 6:34 AM


Re: Just a few pictures
quote:
There are different ways to prove things. If I have direct evidence of one part of the scenario I may only need to put the whole puzzle together to prove other parts of it.
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1231 by Faith, posted 03-08-2018 6:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1238 of 2887 (829511)
03-08-2018 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1217 by Faith
03-07-2018 9:43 PM


Re: Flume experiments pretty much abolish the current thinking about strata
quote:
Also the experiments showed that older strata and therefore their fossil contents can deposit on top of younger strata and their fossils and I don't recall ever hearing that from you or any other geology source.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1217 by Faith, posted 03-07-2018 9:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 1365 of 2887 (829764)
03-13-2018 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1355 by Faith
03-13-2018 2:12 AM


Faith’s Flood makes no sense.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1355 by Faith, posted 03-13-2018 2:12 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1372 of 2887 (829786)
03-14-2018 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1370 by Faith
03-14-2018 5:18 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
quote:
I don't know what Tanypteryx said but it's stupid to have an open mind when you've already established that something is true or false, such as that the Bible is God's word, or that there is evidence for the Flood.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1370 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1374 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1375 of 2887 (829789)
03-14-2018 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1374 by Faith
03-14-2018 5:55 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
quote:
The idea that there is some kind of fossil order is just artificial and subjective. All those animals lived at the same time, not one of them is more or less "evolved" or "modern" than any other.
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:
The Bible is unequivocally God's word and whether you see it or not I believe I've shown many times the evidence that makes the Flood the only possible interpretation against all the fantasies of Evolandia.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1374 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:55 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1381 of 2887 (829803)
03-14-2018 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1370 by Faith
03-14-2018 5:18 AM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
quote:
I believe the evidence shows that all the strata were laid down without any kind of disturbance to them during the laying down and that all the tectonic disturbance clearly evidentially happened afterward. Evidence.
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1370 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 5:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1382 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 2:54 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 1383 by herebedragons, posted 03-14-2018 2:59 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1385 of 2887 (829810)
03-14-2018 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1382 by Faith
03-14-2018 2:54 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
quote:
There is no contrary evidence to the fact that there is no sign of disturbance in the strata before it is all laid down. There are claims, there is no actual evidence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1382 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 2:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1388 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 3:13 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 1391 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 3:24 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 1403 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-14-2018 10:50 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1390 of 2887 (829816)
03-14-2018 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1388 by Faith
03-14-2018 3:13 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
quote:
I know you like your interpretation better than mine, but I continue to like mine better than yours.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1388 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 3:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1393 of 2887 (829821)
03-14-2018 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1391 by Faith
03-14-2018 3:24 PM


Re: A knife-edge thick contact is NOT an inch thickEros
quote:
Let me put it this way: there is no DEFINITIVE UNANSERABLE EVIDENCE on your side.
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:
I've given a plausible answer to it that happens to be consistent with the easily demonstrated fact that the strata were laid down before tectonic disturbance occurr
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:
Everywhere as a matter of fact. It's most telling in the GC/GS area but it's everywhere
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1391 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 3:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1394 by Faith, posted 03-14-2018 3:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024