Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


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


(1)
Message 1930 of 2887 (831363)
04-16-2018 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1929 by Faith
04-16-2018 1:01 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
There have been many different angles of evidence that the completed geologic column was laid down before being disturbed as a stack, rather than individual layers being disturbed
I can’t remember one.
quote:
One of the lines of evidence I've given in the past is cross sections of areas where there are salt basins, in which you can see a whole block of strata, sometimes identified as the usual timescale time periods, all sagging as a unit beneath the salt basin, or sometimes with salt domes shown rising up through the layers.
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:
Michigan basin is one area, Gulf coast area is another. Completed layers all sunken like hammocks in those cases
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:
And now I see we're getting the ad hominem type of response. I direct you to the evidence, you come back at me personally. Oh well.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1929 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 1:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1931 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 1:30 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 1932 of 2887 (831365)
04-16-2018 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1931 by Faith
04-16-2018 1:30 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
Yes, that's the kind of dismissive irrelevant "other evidence" I usually get
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:
If there are only two separate areas where it can be shown that the strata were all in place before any disturbance occurred, whether tectonic, erosive, volcanic or salt-caused deformation as a unit, that is consistent with the Flood model which would of course expect all the strata everywhere to be laid down one after another in rapid succession,
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:
...salt domes rise up through the whole stack and have already reached the top, and we know that they rise almost at a visible rate of movement, that it would have taken nowhere near millions of years. More like, oh, say, something like four thousand or less?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1931 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 1:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1933 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 1:45 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 1934 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 1:55 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 1935 of 2887 (831368)
04-16-2018 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1933 by Faith
04-16-2018 1:45 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
Produce one of those aupposedly many areas of contrary evidence please.
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:
This is just the usual case of competing explanatory paradigms and not of different facts so that's what I would aim to show with whatever different evidence you think you have.
Funny how that never applies to your evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1933 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 1:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1936 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 2:11 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 1937 of 2887 (831374)
04-16-2018 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1936 by Faith
04-16-2018 2:11 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
As you know, I've argued for a different explanation of angular unconformities, and you'd need to explain the rest of your list for me to get your point.
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:
And I've said a million times that I see this as a matter of both sides having the same facts or evidence but different ways of explaining it.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1936 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 2:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1938 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 2:36 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 1939 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 2:40 PM PaulK has replied

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


(2)
Message 1942 of 2887 (831379)
04-16-2018 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1938 by Faith
04-16-2018 2:36 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
Creationists only very recently have been trying to accumulate evidence and explanations to counter the current paradigm which has at least a couple hundred years head start on us.
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:
After you've elaborated your paradigm for that many years of course it looks like all the evidence is on your side because you've got explanations for every little thing, but even the small amount YECs have put together in such a short time STRONGLY indicates that the whole conventional paradigm is a house of cards. B
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:
Your buried forest could very well be explained by the Spirit Lake example of trees that have sunk into a lake in an upright position after the forest was destroyed by a volcano, so that they appear to hve been growing there but actually weren't.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1938 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 2:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1944 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 3:02 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 1943 of 2887 (831380)
04-16-2018 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1939 by Faith
04-16-2018 2:40 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
I wish you'd all stop making up motivations for me instead of dealing with what I've actually said
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1939 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 2:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1945 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 3:06 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 1946 of 2887 (831384)
04-16-2018 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1944 by Faith
04-16-2018 3:02 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
Old style "creationism" was as much a crock as the current paradigm, though even less rationalizable. And it also contradicted the Bible which made it wrong for starters. Darwin had to answer some pretty ridiculous unbiblical AND unscientific explanations for various phenomena, and geology ran into similar irrationalities. So no, there never was a true creationism in either context.
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:
I wish I had the time and the energy to put together all the evidence I've already assembled in one place
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:
The "fossil order" can't be explained because it's a big fat illusion that there IS any real order to the fossils.
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:
There is a supposed "petrified forest" in the Yellowstone area that looks just like the layers of "forests" in Spirit Lake. I don't know anything about your example except that it sounds like a similar situation as it is described.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1944 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 3:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1948 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 3:33 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 1947 of 2887 (831385)
04-16-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1945 by Faith
04-16-2018 3:06 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
For the umpteen jillionth time, once I've assembled as much evidence as I have against the prevailing paradigm and for the young earth, all I have to do is interpret new examples in accord with what I already know, I don't need to start all over reinventing the wheel.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1945 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 3:06 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 1949 of 2887 (831387)
04-16-2018 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1948 by Faith
04-16-2018 3:33 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
You mean that motley collection of fossils found in separate layers that are misinterpreted as some kind of order from primitive to modern but aren't
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1948 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 3:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1950 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 3:40 PM PaulK has replied

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


(2)
Message 1951 of 2887 (831389)
04-16-2018 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1950 by Faith
04-16-2018 3:40 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
The "actual order" has no real order to it at all. just the imposed daydreams of evolutionists.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1950 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 3:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1952 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 4:04 PM PaulK has replied

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


(3)
Message 1953 of 2887 (831391)
04-16-2018 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1952 by Faith
04-16-2018 4:04 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
And it was misinterpreted as having a rational order when it doesn't.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1952 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 4:04 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 1956 of 2887 (831394)
04-16-2018 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1955 by Faith
04-16-2018 4:26 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
I KNOW THERE IS A PREDICTABLE "ORDER" OF APPEARANCE for crying out loud, but the INTERPRETATION of that accidental order in terms of appearance in different "time periods" over millions of years and evolution from one to the next IS AN ILLUSION. Sheesh.
You say you know it but you keep on denying it. And you never deal with it. So what am I supposed to think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1955 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 4:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1957 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 4:42 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 1960 of 2887 (831398)
04-16-2018 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1957 by Faith
04-16-2018 4:42 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
I DON'T KEEP DENYING IT, YOU JUST KEEP MISREADING ME, PROBABLY BECAUSE YOU WANT TO, BECAUSE I AM VERY VERY CLEAR IN MY OWN MIND ABOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL ORDER/SEQUENCE AND THE INTERPRETATION PASTED OVER IT AND DO MY BEST TO STATE IT CLEARLY.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1957 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 4:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1961 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 5:02 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 1962 of 2887 (831400)
04-16-2018 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1959 by Faith
04-16-2018 4:45 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
THE PHYSICAL ORDER IS RANDOM, THE INTERPRETATION OF ORDER IN TERMS OF TIME AND RELATEDNESS IS ILLUSORY. WHY ON EARTH IS THERE SUCH A PROBLEM WITH THIS OBVIOUS POINT?
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:
If there is no rational order to it at all why do you keep expecting creationists to pretend there is.
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:
The best we can do is suppose that there is some unknown principle of physical sorting that accounts for it that may never be known.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1959 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 4:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1963 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 5:10 PM PaulK has replied

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


(2)
Message 1964 of 2887 (831402)
04-16-2018 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1961 by Faith
04-16-2018 5:02 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
quote:
It's only hard to imagine I'm talking about an interpretation because yhou absolutely refuse to read in context of everything I've said about it already.
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:
You just love to pretend I keep contradicting myself, when any fair reading would put two and two together and know what I mean.
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:
I've ALWAYS been addressing the interpreted order of millions of years of the appearance of different cratures in time
Even when the subject under discussion is the actual order that you have never denied. Or so you say.
quote:
It's just that you don't make the distinction between the accidental sequence of fossils and that interpretive system so you assume I'm not.
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1961 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 5:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024