Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2806 of 2887 (832624)
05-06-2018 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2705 by Faith
05-04-2018 1:39 PM


Re: Why would cultural Christians reject evidence if it existed?
Faith writes:
Boy was that a gobbledygook of an answer.
I was able to understand JonF's point, but I can see how it might have seemed a bit garbled to you. But in that case it is incumbent upon you, if working toward mutual understandings is your goal, as it should be for everyone here, to make clear what it was you felt he hadn't explained properly.
But you didn't do that. Your goal seems to be to make discussion as chaotic and confused as your views.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2705 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 1:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2807 of 2887 (832625)
05-06-2018 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2711 by Faith
05-04-2018 6:27 PM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
Faith writes:
I didn't know the size variation was that great. That's a variation of 350. Faith would no doubt cite dogs as having a large size variation, and they do. But calculating it out by height, the Chihuahua can be as small as around 4 inches tall, while the Great Dane is around 40 inches tall, a variation of a mere 10.
You are right I would point to the dog species Kind...
You still haven't defined kind. This failure to define kind despite it being repeatedly called to your attention is just one of many of those silly needless fatal mistakes you spawn that make your arguments like zombies that march mindlessly on not knowing they are dead.
...since they vary greatly in size and are all still dogs. The trilobites had a lot more genetic diversity to play with than today's dogs do,...
Well, it does seem very likely that there was a great deal more genetic diversity in trilobites than in dogs given that trilobites are a class of animal while dogs are a subspecies. Let me remind you of how far class is above subspecies. The classification hierarchy from class downward is: class, order, family, genus, species, subspecies. Trilobites are five levels of classification above dogs. Of course a class consisting of multiple orders, families, genera and species is going to have far, far more genetic diversity than a subspecies.
If you have nothing more than your specious argument about body plan then you indeed have nothing.
...but dogs nevertheless have enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today,...
Really, no kidding. You didn't happen to jot down the figures when you did this analysis, did you? I mean, even though most of what you say is made up there's no reason for anyone to believe that you're making this up too, but hey, just to quiet suspicions that this is made up why don't you throw a few numbers our way.
...although they went through the bottleneck of the Flood and the trilobites are all pre-Flood with all or at least most of their original genetic diversity available.
This seems made up, too.
Yes this is my own theory of course,...
It's actually some weird genre of fiction.
...that I've been arguing for the last decade or so. I don't know if it would ever be possible to persuade anyone here of it but it seems to me to hold together very well;...
Aw, you're so proud, that's so cute.
...it's certainly consistent.
Uh, no. Not even close. Not with itself or with reality or (and this is irrelevant to this thread's topic) with the first eight chapters of Genesis.
If there are better ways to argue for it I hope I run across them.
Oh, the better ways to argue for your viewpoint are not subtle or obscure or anything that has to be sought out. They are things not only obvious to first graders but that have been explicitly suggested to you many times by many people in this thread and in many others. To list just the ones that come to mind right now:
  • Define your terms, for example, kind.
  • Don't make stuff up.
  • Don't endlessly defend made up stuff.
  • Support your assertions with facts or a rationale or both, as appropriate.
  • Respond to the points others make in a substantive way, in other words, with facts or a rationale or both, as appropriate.
  • Do not ignore posts, especially content laden posts. Especially do not ignore content laden posts by replying with two or three dismissive lines, or by responding to one point while ignoring all the others.
  • Learn your subject.
  • Do not post content-free messages.
  • Stay on topic.
  • Do not post conceited boastful claims about yourself that turn you into the topic of discussion, and that people will feel compelled to rebut.
  • Do not leave important and relevant issues unaddressed. Examples in this thread would be radiometric dating, Walther's Law, sediment sorting, fossil sorting, the specifics of how waves deliver sediments, etc.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2711 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 6:27 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2808 by Phat, posted 05-06-2018 2:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2817 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2018 11:11 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2809 of 2887 (832629)
05-06-2018 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2712 by Faith
05-04-2018 6:33 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Faith writes:
I certainly have no problem with even extreme erosion of cliffs, but I can't regard some sand on top of tilted and apparently deeply buried siltstone layers as an angular unconformity,...
And your evidence/rationale for this position?
...just as there is no way that I can see how any current landscape could ever become a slab of rock such as we see in the geo/strat columns.
And your evidence/rationale for this position?
I understand I'm probably not going to be able to persuade anyone of this, though I'll keep trying anyway.
Lacking any evidence/rationale, on what basis are you hoping to persuade anyone?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2712 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 6:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2810 of 2887 (832632)
05-06-2018 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 2719 by Faith
05-04-2018 9:16 PM


Re: Why would cultural Christians reject evidence if it existed?
Faith writes:
That's how we know that the fossils we see in the strata lived at the time the strata was formed: The only way they could get into those layers is to be there at the time of the layer.
But there's a big big problem here. Perhaps I needed to be more specific but the main problem is that you can't prove the time period itself, meaning prove that there ever was a time on the earth when certain plants and animals lived.
The evidence for this position has been provided many, many times, including at least several times in this thread alone. You can't keep starting the discussion from square one. Either you can't remember anything before an hour ago, in which case you should retire from discussion, or you're very much aware the evidence has been presented many times, in which case you're dishonest and should withdraw from discussion in disgrace, or you haven't bothered to read any of the messages describing the evidence, in which case you're derelict, unreliable and incompetent and should be shamed and thrown out of the discussion.
Or you could acknowledge the evidence and rationale already presented and attempt to pick up discussion at the last message that mentioned it.
A note on your terminology: Science doesn't prove things - it is tentative. Science gathers evidence that it constructs into explanatory frameworks called hypotheses and theories around which it tries to build consensus through the gathering of more evidence.
You are assuming the time period, assuming that a particular layer of rock really does represent that time period, but that can't be proved any more than the animals in it can be proved to have lived at any given time.
You know this isn't true, and you know that we know you know this isn't true. Please stop resetting discussion to square one. Go back to the last message that described why we think we know which rocks and fossils are associated with which time periods and pick up discussion there.
It's really the same problem. You can claim the rock is some particular age, but not that it represents a landscape with creatures in it.
Same point.
In order for organisms from, say, the Paleocene to show up in, say, the Permian, or the other way around, you're going to have to disturb all the layers in between in order to move them.
But that isn't the problem I had in mind.
But it's the problem you should have in mind if you had any inkling about the subject.
In my frame of reference the rocks are just rocks, not time periods such as Paleocene or Permian or whatnot.
You have no frame of reference outside of Genesis 1-8. Your views are anchored in your religious beliefs.
You seem to have forgotten (again) that even your flood buffoonery associates rocks with time periods, even if you don't give them names. You accept the Law of Superposition and know full well that the lower the strata the earlier the time it was deposited, whether you measure that time in hours or millions of years.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2719 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2811 of 2887 (832633)
05-06-2018 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2721 by edge
05-04-2018 9:40 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
edge writes:
When you have such variation, it usually means that the relief was low so you had minor transgressions and regressions. If you look up the term 'cyclothem' you'll get a boatload of information on that. However, in those cases, the rise and fall of sea level is not fast enough to plane off the mountains and sea cliffs. It's always a race (relative) between uplift and erosion.
I looked up cyclothem, I get it, thanks.
When the deposition is terrestrial (lakes and rivers and swamps, etc.), you can fill in some of the lowlands and stream channels that way.
Regarding deposition and preservation of coastal swamps and lagoons, I'm trying to reason out for myself how this could happen with a slow transgression. I spent a little time looking at the Everglades with Google Maps. The coastal swamps don't directly join the sea but are a little distance inland. Sometimes they're only tens of feet inland, if that, and are probably often connected to the ocean at high tide. But many are up to several hundred feet inland.
So speculating now I'll say that these swamps are mostly protected from wave action and so do not get eroded away by it. When a slowly rising sea does finally overcome a bit of land and inundate a swamp it is a sudden thing (on a geological timescale) that might happen between one and a hundred years with the sea becoming an increasing presence in the swamp until it is finally there all the time. In this way the swamp would be protected from most wave action but would still be subject to increasing deposition.
Just panning around in Google Maps I didn't see an actual lagoon, but I imagine the process is similar. How am I doing? Don't expend too much effort being gentle, I'll be okay.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2721 by edge, posted 05-04-2018 9:40 PM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2812 of 2887 (832634)
05-06-2018 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2722 by edge
05-04-2018 9:50 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
edge writes:
I have always suspected that you have a hard time visualizing in three dimensions.
I bet many people have 3D visualization difficulties when it comes to geology. Give me a car and I'm all over where everything is in three dimensions, but give me tilted strata to visualize from different angles and in a short time my mind is a haze. Add faults and intrusions and lateral transitions between strata and it becomes really hopeless.
I think I do okay in the end, but I have to work at it. It is lucky I didn't go into geology, because I would have really sucked at it. Fortunately I never became aware of the subject while in college, because I find it fascinating and might have considered it as a major.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2722 by edge, posted 05-04-2018 9:50 PM edge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2813 of 2887 (832636)
05-06-2018 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2723 by Faith
05-04-2018 9:52 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Yes, the amount of salt is something I already mentioned. Not even enough to cause the sagging.
Here's the diagram again:
Where do you see any sagging in any layer? Maybe you're looking at the channels that have been cut downward through strata? If so, that's not sagging.
Again I'll need confirmation from real geologists, but I think the salt layers lying between limestone layers may represent warm shallow seas that receded/evaporated, and that the salt layers between shale layers may represent coastal areas that receded/evaporated.
You are always credulously treating the evogeo paradigm interpretation as unassailable fact and making my eyes roll out onto the floor. This is unprovable nonsense, and it ends any motivation I might have to answer you in spite of all the other reasons I have to ignore you.
The interjection of your personal feelings into matters of evidence and reasoning is really inappropriate and should stop. Emotions have no role in this context.
Do you have any questions or comments about my observations about the contacts in the diagram that I described in Message 2718? It's fine if you approach this with the opinion that it's all a bunch of malarkey and that you're only trying to figure out where the problems lie. Edge responded to that message and didn't indicate that he saw any significant problems with my analysis, so apparently I got it at least mostly right, and if I actually didn't and he was just being polite then I hope he speaks up.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2723 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2814 of 2887 (832637)
05-06-2018 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 2724 by Faith
05-04-2018 9:54 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Faith writes:
Sand over the tilted siltstones would not form an angular unconformity, it would just bury the siltstones.
You have a first class mind whose powers you use to avoid and deflect rather than embrace scientific knowledge.
I was going to suggest you look up angular conformity at Wikipedia, but they garble the definition in my opinion. It says it occurs when horizontal sedimentary rock strata are deposited upon tilted strata, but sedimentary rock strata are never deposited. It is sediments that are deposited, and under the right circumstances the sediments might eventually become sedimentary rock strata. And horizontality is only approximate (certainly Welcombe Mouth Beach is only close to horizontal). And it needn't be sediments - it could be volcanic basalt or ash or mud, or it could be glacial till.
I guess you think you explained how that grooved landscape could become a slab of rock but it doesn't explain that at all, it's just eyeball-rolling mystification.
What is actually called for here are comments and/or questions about Edge's explanation. And again, your emotional reactions to evidence and reason have no place in this discussion.
You really don't seem to know that what you like to call "reality" is just an unprovable and really quite nonsensical impossible interpretation.
What the other participants in this thread have done in support of their views is connect concepts and explanatory frameworks to facts. You should do the same.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2724 by Faith, posted 05-04-2018 9:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2815 of 2887 (832639)
05-06-2018 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2743 by Faith
05-05-2018 5:31 AM


Re: no supergenome
Faith writes:
PaulK writes:
Faith writes:
Here: Take a time period, say the Jurassic, and find a map showing its distribution. It covers enormous areas of the whole earth.
You’re already confusing the strata with the time period. You can say that large areas of the planet had some sedimentary deposition during the Jurassic period, but it is nonsense to say that the period covered enormous areas.
It is very common to find time periods associated with their rocks, it's not considered a confusion and I'm certainly not making up the idea. You can find a map of "the Jurassic period" which obviously associates it with the rocks.
I think I can straighten this out. PaulK was by no means implying that strata are not associated with periods. In fact, there is a one-to-one correspondence between systems (stratigraphic sequences corresponding to a period) and periods, as you might recall Edge describing for us a while back.
PaulK was responding to where in Message 2740 you said, "Take a time period, say the Jurassic, and find a map showing its distribution. It covers enormous areas of the whole earth." He was trying to explain that it makes no sense to say this. I'll explain why in my own way.
The Jurassic period lasted from 208 to 146 million years ago. We want to, quoting you, "find a map showing its distribution." But the entire world was Jurassic during that time period. There can be no "distribution" because everything was Jurassic. That's why you get a map of the entire world when you type "Jurassic period map" into Google Images, e.g.:
I considered whether perhaps you meant to say to find a map showing the distribution of where Jurassic strata (not the Jurassic period) can be found today, but then it still makes no sense to say, "It covers enormous areas of the whole earth," so in the end I concluded you couldn't possibly have meant that kind of map.
So I don't think there's any interpretation of what you said that makes sense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2743 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 5:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2819 by Faith, posted 05-07-2018 9:59 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2818 of 2887 (832647)
05-07-2018 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 2751 by jar
05-05-2018 7:50 AM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
jar writes:
As usual, she never presents the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to do that.
Right. All we want is answers to what are now at least dozens of unanswered questions about Faith claims that range from the questionable to the impossible. Mostly we get either crickets, or nonsensical declarations about how she thinks geology really works, or repeats of her original claims that give no hint of awareness that they've already been rebutted at least several dozen times.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2751 by jar, posted 05-05-2018 7:50 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2820 by Faith, posted 05-07-2018 10:03 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2826 of 2887 (832658)
05-07-2018 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2760 by Faith
05-05-2018 12:00 PM


Re: the strata again
This post already has several replies, but I'm going to emphasize some things those replies didn't touch on.
Faith writes:
Oh well, this is futile. You seem to think "earth" could become a sedimentary rock.
Of course it could. This has all been explained to you many times before. Endlessly repeating your original points makes it impossible for discussion to advance beyond square one. In any case it was just explained to you yet again by HereBeDragons in Message 2786 when he described paleosols.
Now let's put it in a flood context, but I'll call it soil instead of earth. Let's say that during the 40 days and 40 nights of rain while all the land sediments were being washed into the ocean that there were a few square miles of soil that just by chance didn't get washed away and survived the rain intact. Next the ocean rises over the denuded landscape, and also over this few square miles of soil that was not denuded. The ocean deposits a mile or two of sediments onto everything, both the denuded landscape and this few square miles of soil that was not denuded.
This few square miles of soil now lies beneath a mile or two of sediments and is under great pressure. The pressure is so great that the sedimentary layers above this soil layer experience diagenesis and turn to rock. Why doesn't this soil layer also turn to rock? What prevents it from happening? How do you explain paleosols?
Those are rhetorical questions. Naturally any sediments, including those with significant organic content, will experience diagenesis when subjected to such great pressure.
The rock wasn't there at all. IT WAS EARTH. Soil, exactly like today.
"Earth" can't become a sedimentary rock; "soil" can't become a sedimentary rock.
Of course it can, see above. You're just breathtakingly wrong, as has been explained many times across many threads. Why do you insist on dumbly saying things like paleosols can't happen when people have already shown you examples of them having happened? Here's yet another example of paleosol strata, i.e., lithified soil, at Chalk Butte in the Powder River Basin that spans eastern Montana and Wyoming:
Hopefully the geologists will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe paleosols are common strata. Soil implies a non-coastal region, i.e., regions generally at a higher elevation than coastal regions, and so they aren't often preserved, but it can happen. Rapid sea rise or rapid subsidence or some combination could do it. Particularly deep soil deposits in an area that experienced net deposition for a considerable period (say in a valley) where the deeper portions would be preserved if a transgressing sea were to advance across and processes related to Walther's Law were to chomp up the land, that could do it. There are no doubt other ways.
Earth is made up of lots of things besides the simple separated sediment that form the rocks in the geo/strata columns.
I don't know that it would be accurate to call the sediments that formed the more familiar strata types simple, but you are correct that soil can have many components. If I dig into the soil in the woods surrounding my house here in New Hampshire I first hit forest mat a couple inches thick (decaying leaves, pine needles, twigs, and random detritus) then a rugged soil filled with small stones, then hard clay (about a foot down), and there are always rocks (a stone wall was built from the rocks I extracted from the ground while landscaping the property) and roots and burrows (particularly of chipmunks, which seem to prefer a residence close to the house), and sometimes pieces of buried tree (trees, even small ones, apparently take much longer to decay when buried than you would think).
And guess what? These same sorts of things found when I dig into the ground here in New Hampshire are what is found, in lithified form, in paleosol strata. Whatever was in the soil when the area became buried and later lithified, it'll still be there for us to study should the layer ever become exposed, except that the organic components probably don't survive very well, maybe mostly pollen grains and tiny tough particles.
Earth can't become one of those rocks. You can't turn earth into sedimentary rock so how are you going to get the next rock in your supposed stack of rocks? You aren't. Sigh.
Again, when you subject something to great pressure, whether it's soil or sand or mud or silt or clay or calcareous ooze or pelagic or some combination, it will experience diagenesis and lithify.
You say to look out my window for evidence of, what?
You asked what animal could live on a flat expanse of one sediment, so Tangle suggested you look out your window. Of course it's possible that though Nevada has great expanses of flat areas that perhaps you live in a mountainous part, but you get the idea. If you don't live in one of the flat areas then it shouldn't be hard to imagine what you would see if you did live in a flat area and you looked out your window. You would see animals (during the day probably ground squirrels, chipmunks, birds, insects, maybe the occasional deer) living on a flat expanse of one sediment, soil.
Of course many more types of animals live in your flat expanse of soil than the ones you will usually see out your window during the day, like raccoons, mice, moles, mountain lions, snakes, lizards, etc.
Here in New Hampshire when I've looked out my window I've seen birds, squirrels, chipmunks, fishers (a type of weasel), wild turkeys, deer, neighborhood cats and dogs, and once a black bear. They all live on a rolling and hilly expanse of soil. Though very hilly and even mountainous in many parts, New Hampshire does have some extensive fairly flat areas, like the southern and northern parts, and particularly as you approach the coast. Were New Hampshire to somehow become suddenly inundated then sediments would begin accumulating atop the soil, and as the sediments accumulated to greater and greater depths then the processes associated with diagenesis would play a greater and greater role.
In the strata there are only bare flat rocks with some fossilized green things here and there inside them.
Why do you say that strata contain only "some fossilized green things"? You mean fossilized plants? What about animals?
Nothing that flat exists on the earth's surface normally,...
Why do you keep repeating things that are self-evidently not true. You've seen images. Your own state has vast stretches of flat prairie. This is Ash Meadows:
...and no single-sediment either.
Most sedimentary strata isn't "single-sediment" either. HereBeDragons noted the same thing, mentioning the Coconino as one of the exceptions. Here's an example of how varied strata can be. This image is of sandstone paving stones:
It takes special conditions to get those characteristics. The surface of the earth is made up of lots of different sediments and organic matter, the rock layers are not.
Most strata are not paleosols, so of course most strata do not resemble lithified soil. But soil is just sediment that happens to include a large organic component because life grows in, on and above it, contributing excretions, detritus, and its entire self when it dies. Take away the organic component and soil is just the products of erosion that will eventually be transported to the sea where they'll be sorted by the differing intensities of water action into sand, silt, mud, clay and the pelagic sediments.
The surface of the earth is variegated in many ways, the strata are amazingly flat and uniform in character.
As has been explained many times, most strata (especially the ones you're obsessively focused on at the Grand Canyon as if all strata everywhere in the world are the same) result from Walther's Law, which produces fairly flat strata by its very nature. I think you still don't understand Walther's Law. Your reluctance to respond to my posts about Walther's Law tells me you're afraid to understand how it really works because it would force you to discard so much of your flood scenario, not that there aren't many other very good reasons for discard that you also won't discuss.
At some point in the "time period" the rocks that supposedly represent it had to have covered the whole area they now cover within the stack of strata.
Yes, except that at any particular epoch or age these rocks that covered the whole Earth were not rocks - they were loose sediments sitting atop the Earth's surface, either on land or sea floor or lake floor.
When that happened nothing could live there.
Of course life could live there. It was the Earth's surface at whatever epoch, age or period you're talking about, and just like today life then lived on soil, on desert, on mountains, on prairies, on coastal plains, in swamps and lagoons, in the air, in the ground, on the beach, in the water, on sandy coastal sea floor, on near coastal sea floor or mud, silt and clay, on deep sea floor covered with pelagic sediments, and on calcareous ooze beneath warm shallow seas. Any part of that past Earth that happened to become deeply buried beneath sediment would become lithified. If one day uplifted and exposed at the surface through surface erosion or downcutting by rivers and streams then we could study it and see what the environment was like back then, and if it contained fossils then we could learn something about what life was like back then, too.
Even if it was only a short period in the millions of years everything would have to die. if it was a wet sediment nothing could live there,
A significant proportion of ocean life lives on and in wet sediment.
...and when it became rock nothing could live there,...
But it only becomes rock when deeply buried. If the topmost sediments of sea floor over a period of a few million years slowly become buried (along with the remains of some of the life that lived on and above it) beneath a mile of sediments then life still goes on as before a mile above on the sea floor.
...but the point is it HAS to become exposed sediment or rock to become a layer in the geo/stratigraphic column.
You may have been trying to say something different than what you wrote, but as written this is self-evidently wrong. Lithified sediments do not have to become exposed to become part of a stratigraphic column. Why would you think that they would? There must be many strata all around the world that we don't know about yet, but they're still part of stratigraphic columns. This is definitional - it isn't an arguable point.
Sigh. I know this is futile for most here, but maybe someone will get it.
You have managed to get through a whole post without saying almost anything correct, and most everybody gets that.
Sigh. The Holocene "covers the entire Earth." Sigh.
Yes, by definition. The Holocene is the present, and all current geologic change is taking place in the present, which is the Holocene. Again, this is definitional - it isn't an arguable point.
And you expect the Holocene to end up as a flat slab of rock?
Some of it, of course. It's inevitable, particularly the sea floor, though most of it has a limited lifetime compared to continents (some sea floor accretes onto continents). The abyssal plains are some of the flattest places on Earth, and they're accumulating sediments in the neighborhood of a few centimeters per thousand years. In 10 million years the sediments on todays deep ocean sea floors will be buried nearly a half mile down, more than enough for lithification to be well underway.
Have you ever looked at the surface of this Earth?
If it's land you were thinking about when you asked this question, most land does not become strata. Land that does become strata is most often near coastal. For example, this is reflected in the strata beneath Brian Head. By the time land becomes coastal it has usually been eroded fairly flat, and if not then the ocean will grind away at it. But most strata is marine, and most of that has been created by sea transgressions and regressions that leave behind sedimentary strata reflective of Walther's Law which generally results in extensive fairly flat sediments. Walther's Law is something you still don't understand.
The stuff you've supposedly "explained" to me does not make any sense whatever.
We'd be thankful, after the incredible number of times this stuff has been explained, if you just remembered it. I bet most of us have given up hope of you ever understanding it, and certainly no one believes that mere facts will ever convince you.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo, grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2760 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 12:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2829 by Faith, posted 05-07-2018 12:47 PM Percy has replied
 Message 2830 by jar, posted 05-07-2018 2:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2833 by Faith, posted 05-07-2018 8:59 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2834 of 2887 (832676)
05-07-2018 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 2770 by Faith
05-05-2018 1:01 PM


Re: trilobite species
Faith writes:
However, many different species have the same "basic body shape". This is the coyote and the gray wolf. How do tell just from examining the skeletons that these are two different species:
As I believe I said, they are the same Kind,...
Yes, you did say that, but there was rebuttal, and about that you've said nothing. So as I believe *I* said, kind has no definition. You're not saying anything that has any meaning.
...I don't differentiate them by their basic shape; their differences that make them separate "species" (or subspecies), are more superficial.
You say that today, but just a short while ago you said that kind and species were the same thing. For example, you defined kind differently in Message 1746:
Faith in Message 1746 writes:
And also that variation is built into the genome of each species or Kind and can produce a great deal of diversity within the Kind, but that there is no evolution from one species or Kind to another.
And then you were even more explicit in Message 1812:
Faith in Message 1812 writes:
"Kind" means species in the sense I'm using the term above. The words are synonymous, one the English, the other Latin, and "species" gets used for all levels of differentiation ("Species of cat" etc, while "Kind" includes all cats) so that it's hard to be clear when you use "species."
So around mid April species and kind were the same thing, but now in early May they're not. For you kind means whatever you need it to mean at the time. That's why your failure to define kind makes what you're saying nonsense.
Could you please define kind before you make any further use of the term?
And that's what I think is the case with the trilobites too: although they may differ quite a bit superficially they share a basic structure that identifies them as the same Kind.
What happened to your trilobite genetics argument? Did its absurdity finally strike even you?
But anyway, since you haven't defined kind then sure, all trilobites could be the same kind, who knows. But that would make chimps and humans the same kind, too, because certainly these two:
Are far more similar than these two:
Also, all insects share the same basic body plan - are all insects the same kind? All spider share the same basic body plan - are all spiders the same kind? All fish share the same basic body plan - are all fish the same kind?
So you need to define kind, and you need to be very careful about it, because otherwise chimps and humans will be the same kind, and we can't have that, can we.
They all share the same features. It's possible I'd want to separate some into separate groups if I spent more time on it but to me as long as they have the basic tri-lobite form they are the same Kind. They have so much variety within the Kind because all the known specimens are pre-Flood.
You have no evidence or even a definition for trilobite kinds, and you're mixing that all up with something else you have no evidence for, the Flood. You haven't said anything intelligible.
After the Flood the genetic diversity of creatures that were preserved on the ark was greatly reduced because of the bottleneck.
No evidence of any life-wide genetic bottleneck dating to 4500 years ago has ever been identified - it isn't something that could be missed. And as has been pointed out time and again, too many genes of too many organisms have far too many alleles for this bottleneck to be possible, especially for any scenario that rules out mutation.
That is probably also true of most of the creatures that survived in the oceans too.
You still haven't explained why you believe most sea life died in the flood. You said it was suffocated by sediment, but I did the calculations showing that total land sediment volume was only 10% of ocean volume at the time of the flood, so they didn't suffocate. You'll have to find another explanation.
You also haven't explained why you believe most sea life died - what evidence are you looking at? Genesis will provide you little comfort since you've decided that Noah took no sea life aboard. God said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made," so if there were no fish on the ark then arrivederci fish.
Dogs differ from cats in the basic structure,...
Anyone with half decent eyesight can see that's not true. Plus they're both mammals, and they all share the same basic structure.
...the skeletal differences,...
It takes only a casual glance at these images to see that the skeletal differences between cats and dogs are far less than the differences between those trilobites:
...that's what makes them different Kinds...
Again, kind is a word with no definition, so you haven't made an intelligible statement.
...judging at that basic level (but they are also behaviorally extremely different, dogs are all behaviorally clearly dogs and cats clearly cats).
Is behavior part of the definition of kind now? And how are you comparing dog/cat behavioral differences to trilobite behavioral differences?
Humans and chimps differ in their basic structure,...
No, they don't. Humans and chimps have the same basic structure.
And if you think those images of humans/chimps and cats/dogs show greater differences than those trilobites then all it tells us is that your eyesight is far worse than you've let on.
...that's what makes them different Kinds at that level too,...
Again, kind is a word with no definition, so you haven't made an intelligible statement.
...forget behavioral differences which are enormous to say the least.
Again, is behavior part of the definition of kind now?
They do not have the same basic shape despite having the same appendages as do cats and dogs as well. I think the difference in basic shape is apparent in both comparisons.
First you claimed body plan was the criteria, but all mammals have the same basic body plan, so now you're claiming the criteria is basic shape? Inconsistent much?
That's how I sort it but since all this is subjective...
Yes, since you're making things up what you're doing is highly subjective. You need objective criteria, beginning with a definition of kind.
...there's no point in trying to argue it beyond this point.
While your criteria are subjective (and ill-defined and constantly changing), your judgments about degree of differences between creatures are objectively wrong.
I suppose you'll continue to see it the way you do and so will I see it as I do.
But we all know you can't see.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2770 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2836 by Faith, posted 05-07-2018 10:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2842 of 2887 (832693)
05-08-2018 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 2772 by Faith
05-05-2018 1:17 PM


Re: no supergenome
quote:
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Bible interpretations can be argued endlessly because so much is ambiguous. Does God say in Gen 6:17 that he will kill all land life, or all life period?
I'll get to that in a minute. First, to build my argument, I need to interject that Genesis mentions only man, among all life, as receiving the "breath of life":
quote:
Gen 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
But even though the Bible doesn't mention it, your interpretation of Gen 6:17 seems fair:
All flesh wherein is the "breath of life" is taken to refer to animals on the land that breathe the air.
And Gen 6:17 seems to encourage that interpretation, except that it feels like it's leaving something out. Fish and whales and dolphins and seals and manatees and walruses and crustaceans are also living beings, but not on land. And then there's bacteria and protozoa and fungus (neither animal nor vegetable) and so on. If land life required a "breath of life" to become living beings, then wouldn't fish and whales and all the rest also have required some equivalent or analogous "breath of life" to become living beings?
So did water creatures and life too tiny for the Bible writers to know existed have the "breath of life" or not? Who can say?
On whichever side of that argument you fall, where Gen 6:17 says "every thing that is in the earth shall die" doesn't seem to leave a lot of wiggle room. God does seem to be saying he will wipe out all life not on the ark. He says it in other places too, for example:
quote:
Gen 7:4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.
And later when the flood was over, the land was dry, the ark had come to rest, and Noah, his family and all the animals had disembarked, God tells Noah that he has indeed destroyed all life not on the ark:
quote:
Gen 8:21 And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
God clearly states he has destroyed all life, which means life both on land and in the sea.
But how would he have done that. For the time being we'll just assume the Flood wiped out all land life, but what about sea life? You suggested suffocation by sediment, but I've already shown there wasn't enough sediment to make a difference. I suggested salinity changes, but you didn't seem enamored of that possibility, and neither am I really, since many marine creatures can tolerate wide salinity ranges.
And how would seals and dolphins and and whales and so forth be destroyed? They can swim and breath air and so wouldn't be much bothered.
And then there are hippopotamuses and alligators and the like, which though more tethered to land are still very strong swimmers.
And how would fish be destroyed that weren't bothered by salinity changes? How would lobsters and crabs and crinoids and starfish be destroyed?
But the problem of wiping out all life would have been even more difficult than that. Vast mats of floating vegetation would support all kinds of life. Did God go about zapping or in some other way destroying all life that survived this way?
Some of those could be saved on the ark. Marine creatures would die on the ark but could live in the Flood water as long as it wasn't too polluted.
But God claimed to have destroyed all life, which means land and sea life. How did he do that? (Minor nit: polluted is probably the wrong word.)
Why all the trilobites died I don't know.
Science thinks the Siberian Traps, which marked the end of the Permian when the trilobites disappeared and which had a devastating impact on the world environment, might have played a significant role.
All the dinosaurs also eventually died, but in the new world after the Flood, probably because there wasn't enough vegetation to sustain them, as well as the problem of the ice age that would have killed them.
What evidence tells you that trilobites did not survive the flood but dinosaurs did?
Interesting that Gen 2:7 implies that life begins at the first breath, not at conception.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2772 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2845 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 8:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2843 of 2887 (832694)
05-08-2018 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2774 by Faith
05-05-2018 1:22 PM


Re: trilobite species
Faith writes:
The reason your landscape arguments fail is because they're incoherent.
That is probably part of it because it's very hard to get it said.
Would you agree that the expression of inchoate, chaotic or unintelligible ideas (or any combination) is by nature difficult to impossible?
Would you agree that ideas that fall into one or more of these categories should be better thought through and fleshed out before sharing them with others?
In turn I think that most here would agree that anyone with ideas of these types who needs help developing them should be able to request assistance here. But would you agree that while this process of refinement is ongoing that that person should not insist the ideas are correct?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2774 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2847 of 2887 (832700)
05-08-2018 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2777 by Faith
05-05-2018 1:41 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Faith writes:
Percy, as I've made clear many times, I reject YOUR posts because of your attitude toward me. I'm not going to spend time on them for that reason, unless something you say is something I feel like answering. If it means I don't get my argument developed more I'm willing to pass up the opportunity.
First, if you're going to veer off-topic to lavish yourself with praise for the quality of your arguments then you are of course going to draw responses from people who do not see the same qualities. If you don't like people commenting on your self-assessments then you should keep them to yourself. They're not really appropriate anyway - you are not the topic.
Second, everything I said was true. Here is everything I said again, this time in list form and slightly reworded here and there. If I've gotten anything wrong please let me know:
  • If you've done such a good job then why are there pages and pages of posts you've never answered, or that you have answered with just two or three content-free lines?
  • Why do you frequently abandon threads in mid-discussion?
  • Why is the vast majority of what you write just redeclarations of your views?
  • Why do you insist on sprinkling your posts with insults?
  • Why don't you anchor your views in facts?
  • Why do you exert so much effort avoiding certain topics, like fossil order and radiometric dating and sediment sorting, to mention only a few?
  • Why can't you understand important concepts like Walther's Law or how angular unconformities form?
  • Why do you avoid all attempts to discuss Walther's Law?
  • Why are you attempting a scientific approach when:
    1. You've displayed little aptitude for science, especially for assessing evidence and concepts, your own or anyone else's.
    2. You've declared science subordinate to the Bible.
Maybe this has been asked before, but if so I missed it, and right now I'm curious. Do you have a degree or degrees, and if so, what was the highest degree you obtained and in what field? What field or fields were your career or careers in, and what pertinent role or roles did you play? If you have significant and relevant experience outside of work, what was that?
I became curious about your background while thinking about the obvious certainty you feel inside about your ideas.
This certainty seems to me likely a product of the way your brain is wired that has nothing to do with how well those ideas are tethered to facts. I also feel like I detect a significant component in your makeup that values winning much more than getting the facts right, that for you it isn't how the facts add up but how strongly, forcefully and determinedly you can express yourself in order to manipulate and control discussion.
These are strong criticisms, so let me add some balance by reprising an earlier positive comment in greater detail and with greater emphasis, that I think you have a *very* powerful and creative mind, but one which seems to lack all discipline. Were it to embrace the need to connect ideas to facts and find the wherewithal to set ego aside you could accomplish great and wonderful things.
But if you're determined to continue on your current course, one of persuasion that has not wavered one bit in all your time here (I say this with great confidence because I recently read a large number of your posts from 2005), then your time may be wasted here and would be better spent on your blog. No one here who isn't a creationist is ever going to be persuaded of ideas that you're unable to connect to facts.
If your goal is to get feedback about your ideas so you can improve them then because of the way you're going about it I would conclude again that your time is wasted here and would be better spent on your blog.
If your goal is the rewarding feelings you experience from ministering to those with different or no religious beliefs, then carry on but perhaps don't take it so seriously.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2777 by Faith, posted 05-05-2018 1:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2849 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 9:52 AM Percy has seen this message but 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