Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 163 (8185 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2014 9:22 PM
73 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: maplopes
Post Volume:
Total: 744,008 Year: 29,849/28,606 Month: 1,578/3,328 Week: 354/674 Day: 67/130 Hour: 3/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67Next
Author Topic:   Fish on the Ark?
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5146
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 61 of 91 (446826)
01-07-2008 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by imageinvisible
01-07-2008 3:40 AM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
(note that the faster of said creatures would most likly be the last to be buried)

And this implies that grasses and flowering plants in general run faster than tree ferns and rhyniophytes? I know that cypress trees have knees, but I don't think they have ankles or feet, or can even run a little bit. But they are fossilized way up above Lepidosigillaria.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 3:40 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

    
reiverix
Member (Idle past 2340 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 62 of 91 (446872)
01-07-2008 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by imageinvisible
01-05-2008 2:02 AM


Re: dolphins?
Pre-flood fish where different in that the sea (when it was created) had no salts in it and where therefore fresh water, meaning that all the pre-flood fish where fresh water fish.

Then how did coral come into existence? There isn't enough calcium in freshwater for reef building. Fossilized reefs are not that uncommon.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by imageinvisible, posted 01-05-2008 2:02 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

    
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 2439 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 63 of 91 (446969)
01-07-2008 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by arachnophilia
01-07-2008 4:38 AM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
Genesis 1:9 And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so. 10 And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called `Seas;' and God seeth that [it is] good.

The inferance is clear that if all of the water was gathered into one place, that the land likewise was gathered into one place. i.e. one ocean, one landmass. IOW pangia, but this is off topic, if you want we can take the issue to the 'what does the Bible say' thread.

Paulk writes:

In reply it should be pointed out that while this may be - generously - called a theoretical possiiblity - there is a lack of evidence that it actually occurred.

Not true there is plenty of evidence, but off topic.

paulk writes:

in the earliest fossil-bearing deposits we only find aquatic life. We go on finding aquatic life throughout the fossil record

Hince an obsevation that seems to support a global flood, that even when we find land animals they are generally buried with water borne creatures. Evolutionists have their postulates as to why we find land animals mixed in with marine creatures, and creationist have theirs, this is a matter of interpriting the evidence. The evidence for both sides is the same only the starting presuppositions are different. Niether view point will ever be proven as an uncontestable fact becuase the occurance was not observed in the first person by anyone alive today and it cannot be repeated. All we can do on either side of the fence is make assumptions and see how well our assumptions fit with our interpritation of the evidence. Evolutionist claim that the geological column was greated over hundreds of millions of years, however there is a large amount of observational data that indicates otherwise, but I don't see evolutionists throwing out their theories just because some of the evidence doesn't fit.

Paulk writes:

I didn't have time to do a detailed check on your list of out-of-place fossils, but one example mentions reworking in the title

Yes well it is an old list if you didn't notice. It was compiled in 1984 I believe and needs to be revised, I'm fairly certain some more OOP fossils have been found to add to the list to take the place of any that have been relagated to 'reworking'.

as for you asertions on Coelacanth: coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years but in fact the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. However, some of the extinct species, particularly those of the last known fossil coelacanth, the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species. You are speaking of specication not genus and as my earlier post pointed out evolutionary ideas concerning genus/phyla/family are faulty and is at best a smokescreen for trying to provide proof of evolution.

granny Magda writes:

As for your unvarying Lazarus taxa, PaulK has already blown your coelacanth example out of the water, so I'll take the wollemi pine. Here's this from the all-knowing wiki;

quote:
Fossils resembling Wollemia and possibly related to it are widespread in Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica, but Wollemia nobilis is the sole living member of its genus.

Not identical then.

the all knowing wiki, as granny magda calls it writes:

Fossils resembling Wollemia and possibly related to it are widespread in Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica, but Wollemia nobilis is the sole living member of its genus. The last known fossils of the genus date from approximately 2 million years ago. It is thus described as a living fossil, or alternatively, a Lazarus taxon.

Fewer than a hundred trees are known to be growing wild, in three localities not far apart. It is very difficult to count them as most trees are multistemmed and may have a connected root system. Genetic testing has revealed that all the specimens are genetically indistinguishable, suggesting that the species has been through a genetic bottleneck in which its population became so low (possibly just one or two individuals) that all genetic variability was lost.

More observable evidence of a recent catostrophic global flood, and the resultant adaptation of surviving species to the new, greatly altered, environment; as well as the subsiquent extinction of those that could not adapt. This same 'bottlekneck' can be found in almost every species alive today, including humans, but evolutionary theories want to ignore the possibility that all of these bottleknecks occured as the result of one single event. When you exclude information like this who is the real culprite of misinformation?

Evolutionary theories are stuck on the idea that variations within a phyla/genus (IOW speciation) is proof that things have evolved, it is not. It only proves that organisms can and do adapt to a changing environment. If there where another living species of wollemi pine that could add it's genetic information to the one that exists in australia, then a new species would be born. For example the Lion and the Tiger. Evolution would have us believe that since these two creatures are of a different species that they are unrelated in that they inhabit two seperate branches of the evolutionary tree. But these two creatures can mate and produce viable living offspring, that can even themselves reproduce, thus creating a new species call Ligers. The misinformation is that minor changes in skin/coat color, size, eating habits, the loss of certain abilities (like flight etc.) are all proof of evolution, when they are not. They are proof of an organisms ability to adapt to a particular environment. This process does not add any new genetic information, it can only work with what it has and for the most part results in a loss of genetic divercity/variability. So the idea that the wollemi pine is not the same wollemi pine found in fossil records is flawed. The only difference is that the wollemi pine in australia has had @3000 years to adapt to it's new environment. The same can be said of the coelacath. There is no morphological difference, it is still recognizable as a coelacath.

Coragyps writes:

And this implies that grasses and flowering plants in general run faster than tree ferns and rhyniophytes

Thogh it is off topic I will make two points. 1. that land does not move even when the water is moving over the top of it and 2. That uprooted plants in a flood can move quite rapidly, and create an enormous amount of devistation.


Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2008 4:38 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2008 5:24 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded
 Message 65 by bluescat48, posted 01-07-2008 10:49 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 11:09 PM imageinvisible has responded
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 01-12-2008 11:16 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2008 12:09 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 11005
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 64 of 91 (446977)
01-07-2008 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by imageinvisible
01-07-2008 5:09 PM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
quote:

Not true there is plenty of evidence, but off topic.

Well it must be pretty new because last I heard there was none at all. When I first came here the creationist focussing on it - and he was better informed than most creationists - was sticking to evidence for ordinary plate tectonics - which, of course, doesn't support the catastrophic element at all.

quote:

Hince an obsevation that seems to support a global flood, that even when we find land animals they are generally buried with water borne creatures.

No more than is expected, based on the fact that water is pretty good at burying things.

quote:

The evidence for both sides is the same only the starting presuppositions are different.


Except for the evidence that the creationists have to ignore. Or misrepresent.

quote:

. Evolutionist claim that the geological column was greated over hundreds of millions of years, however there is a large amount of observational data that indicates otherwise, but I don't see evolutionists throwing out their theories just because some of the evidence doesn't fit.

I've had this discussion before. One side - the old earth view (which some creationists - such as Hugh Ross - accept) has the bulk of the evidence except for rare anomalies, mostly unreliable. The other side seems to only have rare anomalies - there is no "large amount of observational data" supporting a young earth. Or is this something else so new that almost nobody has heard of it ?

quote:

Yes well it is an old list if you didn't notice. It was compiled in 1984 I believe and needs to be revised, I'm fairly certain some more OOP fossils have been found to add to the list to take the place of any that have been relagated to 'reworking'.

I didn't say that an example was "lost". I said that the reference given in the list itself attributed the fossils to reworking. It's not a case of new information turning up - it's information that was used to compile the list in the first place !

quote:

as for you asertions on Coelacanth: coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years but in fact the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record.


So how do you know they've remained unchanged for millions of years ?

quote:

You are speaking of specication not genus

No, AFAIK they're not even classified as being in the same family.

quote:

as my earlier post pointed out evolutionary ideas concerning genus/phyla/family are faulty and is at best a smokescreen for trying to provide proof of evolution

You mean biologist's ideas - going back to Linnaeus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 5:09 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 65 of 91 (447064)
01-07-2008 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by imageinvisible
01-07-2008 5:09 PM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
imageinvisible
For example the Lion and the Tiger. Evolution would have us believe that since these two creatures are of a different species that they are unrelated in that they inhabit two seperate branches of the evolutionary tree. But these two creatures can mate and produce viable living offspring, that can even themselves reproduce, thus creating a new species call Ligers.

What is your source?

Is it a male tiger and a female lion or vice-versa the alternate is a ligon.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 5:09 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 87 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 66 of 91 (447070)
01-07-2008 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by imageinvisible
01-07-2008 5:09 PM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
Re. the wollemi pine;

quote:
Fossils resembling Wollemia and possibly related to it are widespread in Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica, but Wollemia nobilis is the sole living member of its genus.

That's "resembling", OK? Not "{doesn't} exhibit any morphological differances" as you said. Got that? As for this nonsense;

imageinvisible writes:

This same 'bottlekneck' can be found in almost every species alive today, including humans...

Are you saying that all humans are genetically identical? Because that would be retarded. Of course, if all humanity really were descended from Noah an co, we would indeed see a genetic record of a bottleneck. We don't.


Mutate and Survive
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 5:09 PM imageinvisible has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by imageinvisible, posted 01-14-2008 3:21 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 67 of 91 (447290)
01-08-2008 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by imageinvisible
01-07-2008 1:11 AM


Re: dolphins?
A belief that states that things were different back then, that the laws of physics were different is not a poor belief. What is a poor belief is to believe that and believe this change in the fundamental nature of physics left no trace of itself is. Until disbelievers of uinformitarism can provide evidence of this previous state of physics, there is no reason to assume uinformitarianism is false.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 1:11 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 8967
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 68 of 91 (448319)
01-12-2008 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by imageinvisible
01-07-2008 5:09 PM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
Genesis 1:9 And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so. 10 And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called `Seas;' and God seeth that [it is] good.

The inferance is clear that if all of the water was gathered into one place, that the land likewise was gathered into one place.

this is a false conclusion. the oceans today are on contiguous body of water, yet there is land in more than one place.

IOW pangia, but this is off topic, if you want we can take the issue to the 'what does the Bible say' thread.

indeed, but i would imagine that if one is going to defend the bible in a science thread, one should at the very least be accurate in what it says.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 5:09 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13098
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 69 of 91 (448562)
01-14-2008 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by imageinvisible
01-07-2008 5:09 PM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
Hince an obsevation that seems to support a global flood, that even when we find land animals they are generally buried with water borne creatures.

But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.

Evolutionist claim that the geological column was greated over hundreds of millions of years, however there is a large amount of observational data that indicates otherwise.

But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.

More observable evidence of a recent catostrophic global flood, and the resultant adaptation of surviving species to the new, greatly altered, environment; as well as the subsiquent extinction of those that could not adapt. This same 'bottlekneck' can be found in almost every species alive today, including humans.

But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.

They are proof of an organisms ability to adapt to a particular environment. This process does not add any new genetic information, it can only work with what it has and for the most part results in a loss of genetic divercity/variability.

But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.

The evidence for both sides is the same only the starting presuppositions are different.

And this is the Biggest Creationist Lie Of Them All.

We are not looking at the same evidence. Scientists look at evidence. Creationists look at made-up nonsense for which they have no evidence. As you have just demonstrated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by imageinvisible, posted 01-07-2008 5:09 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 2439 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 70 of 91 (448581)
01-14-2008 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Granny Magda
01-07-2008 11:09 PM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
It would be very off topic to go into much detail here concerning the ancestry of man. I will howevery show you my sources and give you a quick rundown. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i4/bones.asp I speak, concerning a 'bottlekneck' in human history, of the Mitochondrial DNA inherited by all humans. The only two explainations of which are that all humans where born of a. one human female or b. a small group of human females of which only the mitochondrial DNA of one survived. The history of the earth as outlined in the Bible agrees with both conclusions. IOW c. both a. and b. a. being Eve, and b. being Noah's wife and the wives of Noah's children.

Granny Magda writes:

Are you saying that all humans are genetically identical?

Identical in that there is only one race, Human. Which is what the Bible has stated all along. Any apearent diferances are due strictly to speciation, or adaptation to a particular environment. i.e. slight diferances in color variations, distinctive features selected both environmentaly like hight to climat ratios, and socialy like facial features. Like the Bible says there are many tribes, mant tongues, and many nations but only one race decended from adam and eve; man. I do not know if there is curently a thread along these lines of discussion.

Obvious Child writes:

Until disbelievers of uinformitarism can provide evidence of this previous state of physics, there is no reason to assume uinformitarianism is false.

Until believers in uniformitarianism can provide evidence of their previous state of physics, there is no reason to assume that the uniformitarian principle is true. I believe that there is a thread on this if you would like to go there and debate it further Obvious Child. There is a conciderable amount of observational data which calls into question the UP.

And DrAdiquate down there has just demonstrated the tendancy for evolutionists to arbitrarily discount anything that a creationist says by attempting to deny that we have observable evidence in place of made-up nonsense. However in so doing he has just refuted PaulK concerning water being good at buring things, and natural selection and speciation.

BTW I found those figures for ocean salination rates.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/seas.asp As noted in this source and in the material referances this source cites (4,5, and 6); The minimum possible rate in the past (of sodium input), even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 356 million tonnes/year. While the maximum possible rate in the past (of sodium output), even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 206 million tonnes/year. Which gives an absolute maximum age for the earths ocean at 62 million years (Not counting a global flood).

PS to PaulK for a general introduction to Catastrophic Plate Techtonics please see Dr. Baumgardner's articles for the CPT forum at these two sites: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/plate.asp http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html If you want to discuss them further I am sure we can find a better thread in which to do so.


Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 11:09 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by anglagard, posted 01-14-2008 4:19 AM imageinvisible has responded
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2008 8:37 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2008 2:35 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded
 Message 76 by Granny Magda, posted 01-14-2008 10:35 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded
 Message 77 by obvious Child, posted 01-18-2008 6:29 PM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2013
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 71 of 91 (448583)
01-14-2008 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by imageinvisible
01-14-2008 3:21 AM


Answer this Gish
Why don't you pick one of your PRATTs to argue and stick with it instead of doing the Gish gallop?

Besides two can play the Gish gallop game Message 2

Pick one out of the 100 cowboy, make a PNT, and lets see how long your (or should I say AIG's) argument survives.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by imageinvisible, posted 01-14-2008 3:21 AM imageinvisible has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by imageinvisible, posted 01-14-2008 5:55 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
imageinvisible
Member (Idle past 2439 days)
Posts: 132
From: Arlington, Texas, US
Joined: 12-03-2007


Message 72 of 91 (448589)
01-14-2008 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by anglagard
01-14-2008 4:19 AM


Re: Answer this Gish
Actualy the referances cited (concerning ocean salinity) aren't from Gish, whoever that is, they are from geologist Dr. Steve Austin and physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys. Now Dr. Austin I am not familiar with his work but Dr. Humphrys work I am familiar with. Particularly his magnetic field theory which acuratly predicted the magnetic field strength of Uranus and Neptunes magnetic fields before they where measured (10. Paleomagnatism), and his starlight and time theory, a creationist cosmology model.

As far as AiG is concerned they have a feedback link; if you have a problem with something that is posted on their site feel free to try and refute it, I'm sure the scientist/s involed would enjoy discussing it with you.

'A servant is not greater thsn his Master.'


Disclaimer: Topical discretion is advised.
This post may contain information, logic/reason exercises, and/or questions used to illustate what I base my logical conclusions on and to expond upon a particular idea. That information/etc. should not be debated in this thread, and any questions that do not fit the topic should not be answered in this thread. Many of these questions/etc. are retorical and/or are included to elicit a mental response not necessaraly a verbal (or in this case a literary) one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by anglagard, posted 01-14-2008 4:19 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Zucadragon, posted 01-14-2008 7:00 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
Zucadragon
Member (Idle past 77 days)
Posts: 61
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006


Message 73 of 91 (448591)
01-14-2008 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by imageinvisible
01-14-2008 5:55 AM


Re: Answer this Gish
Gish gallop is a term that is used to emphasize a certain way of debating...

Wikipedia says:

quote:
Gish uses a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. The approach has been dubbed the "Gish Gallop" by Eugenie Scott and criticized for failing to answer objections raised by his opponents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by imageinvisible, posted 01-14-2008 5:55 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 13098
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 74 of 91 (448604)
01-14-2008 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by imageinvisible
01-14-2008 3:21 AM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
And DrAdiquate down there has just demonstrated the tendancy for evolutionists to arbitrarily discount anything that a creationist says ...

But this is not true. I am not "arbitrarily" discounting anything that you say.

I am pointing out that certain specific statements that you have made are not true, which is why you have no evidence for them.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by imageinvisible, posted 01-14-2008 3:21 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 11005
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 75 of 91 (448637)
01-14-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by imageinvisible
01-14-2008 3:21 AM


Re: Where is the Evidence?
quote:

The history of the earth as outlined in the Bible agrees with both conclusions. IOW c. both a. and b. a. being Eve, and b. being Noah's wife and the wives of Noah's children.

Even your 'b' option proposes an implausibly low population - and you've only got 2000 years to get any significant variation between the 4 women you mention. We should be seeing signs of a severe genetic bottleneck if you were correct.

quote:

Until believers in uniformitarianism can provide evidence of their previous state of physics, there is no reason to assume that the uniformitarian principle is true.


Astronomy provides pretty good evidence. Indeed the fact that we don't find more inexplicable data in geology is good evidence too. And the idea that the laws of physics just happened to be different in a way that made a global flood look like hundreds of millions of years (or more !) of ordinary geology is not exactly likely.

quote:

And DrAdiquate down there has just demonstrated the tendancy for evolutionists to arbitrarily discount anything that a creationist says by attempting to deny that we have observable evidence in place of made-up nonsense. However in so doing he has just refuted PaulK concerning water being good at buring things, and natural selection and speciation.

I don't know how you drag natural selection and speciation in here. Even on water we basically agree that there is no excess of water-related fossils - and you aren't providing any reason to think that there is.

quote:

PS to PaulK for a general introduction to Catastrophic Plate Techtonics please see Dr. Baumgardner's articles for the CPT forum

Much of them is arguing for plate tectonics. There doesn't seem to be much arguing for catastrophic plate tectonics and what I can see that does try doesn't seem that convincing. Further discussion is off-topic but I see no reason to change my assessment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by imageinvisible, posted 01-14-2008 3:21 AM imageinvisible has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014