|
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
|
quote: I can’t remember one.
quote: If I remember correctly there was contrary evidence in that example, too. However, a few cherry picked examples are not worthwhile as evidence, and nowhere near good enough to justify disregarding contrary evidence. You could equally well argue that all swans are black that way. On the other hand we have very good evidence of earlier disturbances As an aside although you said you found discussions you haven’t linked to a single one.
quote: Even if true that’s obviously not enough even if we didn’t have good counter-examples. Some, therefore all is obviously invalid reasoning.
[quote]
quote: Even if we generously accept your vague references as direction there is no reason to believe that the evidence is remotely adequate, or even could be. And there certainly was no ad hominem in the post you replied to or it’s predecessor. Which is more than can be said for your post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Instead of getting arrogant and nasty when you are caught making false claims it would be better not to make the false claims in the first place.
quote: Then all the regions where there is contrary evidence would certainly outweigh them. Because there is a lot of geological evidence against your Flood geology.
quote: Guesses aren’t evidence, and even if you could find a young salt dome it wouldn’t be evidence that the Earth is young. That really should be obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: The Grand Canyon Area has a number of features, of course, Siccar Point - anywhere there is an angular unconformity. Anywhere we find desert deposits, like the Gobi. Anywhere we find substantial evaporites deposits like the example Edge posted recently in this thread, anywhere we find buried landscapes - a stunning example at Naturalis Historia quote: Funny how that never applies to your evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I know you have an ad hoc explanation of angular unconformities. I also know that it is riddled with problems and you haven’t any evidence for it over the far more sensible standard view. Even the basic form - the sudden transition from steeply tilted to pretty much flat strata obviously fits mainstream geology far better before we start to think about anything else. Deserts and evaporites should be obvious. You don’t get many years of dry conditions during a year long-flood. You don’t have time for landscapes to form, either. That’s why you insist that they don’t exist. And if you have a sensible explanation of how you could get a buried forest with in-situ remains - covered by volcanic ash and sandwiched between layers of coal I would like to hear it. Don’t forget to explain why the remains - plant and animal - are typical of the Permian system (consistent with the order in the fossil record).
quote: But you only say that to answer our evidence (or try to) - you never consider it when presenting your own. If we disagree with your idea of the implications you call us blind - even we are obviously correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Since creationism was the dominant view when we started accumulating evidence that is slanting the picture more than somewhat. Creationists had a chance right at the beginning, and a strong position. And the time since then to the start of the modern Creationist movement - in the early 20th Century - is well under your 200 years.
quote: It’s not just little things, it’s pretty much everything. The order of the fossil record is not little or new and there is no still sign of Young Earth creationists explaining it. There are no great achievementd, there are no arguments half as good as those against a Young Earth. In reality you pretend to have evidence, pretend to have present proofs, dismiss and ignore large amounts of evidence. Because on a fair assessment you really have very little beyond an insistence that your favourite myths must be literally true.
quote: Even if that were true - and it would take evidence to show that - it doesn’t explain why they fit with the order of the fossil record, and I doubt that Spirit Lake would have the same animal remains. Also, the trees in Spirit Lake had been growing nearby which hardly helps you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Well you certainly don’t deny the presence of buried landscapes based on the evidence. As usual you never bothered to investigate it and refuse to accept evidence when it is presented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: You say that, but there was nothing against a Young Earth or a worldwide Flood. And Biblical arguments would even have been accepted by some. And don’t forget that the creationists of that time were trying to deal with the evidence, too.
quote: It would save a lot of time if you restricted yourself to things that are actually true, instead of things you made up. Which really shows how weak your case is. And don’t forget that this sub-discussion started because you claimed to have evidence you didn’t have.
quote: And there you go making baseless claims to dismiss evidence you don’t like. And don’t forget it wasn’t so long ago you were claiming you never said that and complaining bitterly when it was pointed out that you had. But the order of the fossil record is observed fact, and I have pointed to a dramatic example of it. On top of all the others that have been given. So much for interpreting the evidence differently. Outright denying observed facts is not an interpretation.
quote: Or so creationists say. I don’t know so much about those but you can bet that they fit with the order of the fossil record, too. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Since you have - to be kind - very little evidence, and we have more and better then presumably we should be able to do the same without being accused of blindness. The more so since we aren’t dismissing actual evidence out of hand or calling it an illusion for no good reason. But maybe you think pretending to have evidence beats really having it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I mean the fact that there is a distinct order to the fossil record regardless of its interpretation. An order that is not reasonably explained by habitat or hydraulic sorting or differential escape, even in combination. And since you have added more of your usual nastiness, I mean the fossil forest in the Naturalis Historia link. A very good collection of fossils, all nicely preserved - and all consistent with the known order. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: And there you go with more unfounded nastiness. The order of the fossil record is observed fact. It was discovered before the theory of evolution got started, without reference to evolution. Those are the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I am not debating interpretation. I am pointing out the fact if the order and you just keep on with the nastiness. Fact: there is an order to the fossil record. Fact: it cannot be explained by Flood geology. All the nastiness you can muster won’t change that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: You say you know it but you keep on denying it. And you never deal with it. So what am I supposed to think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: You mean when you say
The "fossil order" can't be explained because it's a big fat illusion that there IS any real order to the fossils.
Or
there IS NO "actual order," it's all an illusion, so if I answered that it doesn't matter I was saying the same thing as that it doesn't exist.
It is really hard to imagine that you are talking about an interpretation. After all the actual physical order does cry out for an explanation. The fact that every time it comes up we see rejections of the order rather than any attempt to deal,with it is quite telling. Indeed if you are suddenly changing the subject to the interpretation - without any indication you are doing so it seems that you are the one who wants us to think that you are still talking about the actual physical order.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: If you want to know why we disagree. It is simple. First, the idea that it is a massive coincidence is clearly implausible. If you want to call it Random you need to deal with that - and you don’t. Second, as I have already pointed out at least twice in this thread the order is quite strongly consistent with evolutionary theory which would be rather surprising in itself, if it were by chance.
quote: Since we keep asking creationists to explain the actual physical order - and nothing more - this objection is either a straw man or yet another denial that there is any order at all.
quote: Which is obviously not at all a good explanation. It would be pretty weak even if you had a good case on other grounds. And you don’t.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: The idea that you were dishonestly changing the subject AND didn’t mean what you clearly said is not a natural one to me. Why are you complaining that I take your statements at face value instead ?
quote: If you were actually clear about what you meant - instead of clearly saying something you say you didn’t mean we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Don’t attack me when the fault is yours.
quote: Even when the subject under discussion is the actual order that you have never denied. Or so you say.
quote: It seems the reverse is the case. I keep talking about the actual order, not the interpretation and yet in your replies - according to you - you keep attacking the interpretation without any indication that you are talking about something different. How can that be unless you are the one confusing the two ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024