|
Author
|
Topic: Fossil sorting for simple
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
Message 1 of 308 (82433)
02-03-2004 1:19 AM
|
|
|
Ok, simple here is your place to give us the explanation for how the fossils got sorted by the great flood.
Common sense isn't
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 02-03-2004 1:22 AM | | NosyNed has replied | | | Message 43 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 5:37 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 2 of 308 (82436)
02-03-2004 1:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
02-03-2004 1:19 AM
|
|
Just to help I'm moving simple response to here.
simple writes: how a flood could order the fossils? .. Walt's book deals with that, citing lab experiments, etc. He also mentions a process, like in earthquakes, called liquefaction. In a worldwide scenario, the denser mammals would fall in a certain order. So it would be, in many cases, not so much which creature evolved from the next, so much as which was last to drown! I suppose there were a world of variables as well, such as, who got stuck in a mudslide, or current that smacked into one, etc! Then, if Walt is correct, the compression event, where the mountains uplifted in the continental slide. I would think lots of creatures would have been squeezed up with the mountains of sediment (ie Northern Rockies). And, on it goes, with the general idea being a recent cataclysm resulting in what we now see.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 02-03-2004 1:19 AM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 3 of 308 (82437)
02-03-2004 1:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
02-03-2004 1:22 AM
|
|
denser
the denser mammals would fall in a certain order. This seems to be the only bit that talks about actually ordering in your post. So we would, from this suggestion, expect to find fossils sorted by density? Now can you show how the fossils are actually ordered by density? Are dinosaurs more or less dense than elephants? Are flying reptiles and archeopteryx more dense than marsupials, horses and lions? This is an example of how creationists have not explained the ordering. Care to try again? All the rest of your post does is suggest an enormously violent randomizing of all the living things on the planet. Is that a fair description?
Common sense isn't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 02-03-2004 1:22 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 5 of 308 (82689)
02-03-2004 4:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
02-03-2004 3:38 AM
|
|
Bump for simple
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 3:38 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 02-03-2004 6:10 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 6 of 308 (82771)
02-03-2004 6:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by NosyNed
02-03-2004 4:09 PM
|
|
Bump for simple
Bump - you're posting elsewhere arguing with things you know nothing about. Why not explain the ideas that you are supposed to know something about.
Common sense isn't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 02-03-2004 4:09 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 7 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 11:34 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 9 of 308 (82926)
02-04-2004 1:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by simple
02-03-2004 11:34 PM
|
|
Re: Bump for simple
Some how "good bye" as a response isn't a surprise to me. It is very clear that you don't like getting asked clear questions for which you and your sources don't have a coherent answer. I love it! I would suggest that we keep this thread around for any more "flooders" who may appear. It will be interesting to see how creative the answers they attempt will be. In fact, the idea of trying to control time wasting new posters might be supported by simply directing some of them here. It sure drove simple off.
Common sense isn't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by simple, posted 02-03-2004 11:34 PM | | simple has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 10 by Joe Meert, posted 02-04-2004 8:25 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Thank you very much, Bill. For those who actually think that the flood can explain away the fossil record this is their big chance to show how that can be.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 02-04-2004 5:54 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 15 of 308 (83104)
02-04-2004 5:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
02-04-2004 11:12 AM
|
|
Shallow Seas
simple, you haven't finished with the fossil sorting by the flood yet. I don't think that you need to start up other threads until you have finished with the others. Nor do I think anyone should spend time on your discussions until you have demonstrated you are acting in good faith. (note because of the " marks in the title of your shallow seas thread it can't be posted to. Can an Admin fix that please. -- or perhaps leave it until simple has cleared up old issues. ) [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-04-2004]
Common sense isn't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 02-04-2004 11:12 AM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 02-04-2004 10:21 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 16 of 308 (83186)
02-04-2004 10:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by NosyNed
02-04-2004 5:54 PM
|
|
Re: Shallow Seas
and speaking of yellow, yellow, yellow simple did you forget this thread? (and I suppose I could include whatever with simple too) [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-04-2004]
Common sense isn't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 02-04-2004 5:54 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 18 of 308 (83202)
02-04-2004 11:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by simple
02-04-2004 11:09 PM
|
|
Re: reply as ordered by one Queen, she says, of the Universe
Excuse me, but that is no answer at all to the sorting problem. And even you must know that. I would suggest a suspension at this point. Actually I'm only being polite at that. but yellow seem to describe you exactly. [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-04-2004]
Common sense isn't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by simple, posted 02-04-2004 11:09 PM | | simple has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 19 by wj, posted 02-04-2004 11:46 PM | | NosyNed has replied | | | Message 22 by simple, posted 02-04-2004 11:54 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 21 of 308 (83207)
02-04-2004 11:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by wj
02-04-2004 11:46 PM
|
|
Re: reply as ordered by one Queen, she says, of the Universe
I agree, will ignore our boy, who actually brought up the sorting in a thread but can't handle it now.
Common sense isn't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by wj, posted 02-04-2004 11:46 PM | | wj has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by simple, posted 02-04-2004 11:57 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 25 of 308 (83229)
02-05-2004 12:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by simple
02-04-2004 11:57 PM
|
|
Re: reply as ordered by one Queen, she says, of the Universe
This was an issue that was brought up in your discussion of the flood before others. It is a much clearer simpler topic than some of the more complex ones about the behavior of tectonic plates. It is also one that can't be answered so it is easy to understand why you are avoiding it.
Common sense isn't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by simple, posted 02-04-2004 11:57 PM | | simple has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 26 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 1:19 AM | | NosyNed has not replied | | | Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 02-05-2004 1:24 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 27 of 308 (83251)
02-05-2004 1:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
02-05-2004 12:38 AM
|
|
Why this question?
For skeptick: I selected this because: 1) It hasn't been able to be answered by anyone else here or any of the creationists sites so I figure I'm on topic that is harder for the opponents. 2)It is a lot simpler than the entire field of plate tectonics, all of geology, the development of consciousness etc. For this reason it might be possible to contain the discussion so that it doesn't go on forever. 3) It will be interesting to see what kind of quality of discussion can be maintained by some (especially simple who started it with:
simple writes: Some more modern experts have figured out the relative order of deposition of fossils, in the flood, and how they would settle down, and came up with the stratigraphy also. Only they had the good sense to not try to assign millions of years to the operation.
So it seems that the creationist experts have the answer. Only when asked for it creationists can't supply it. [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-05-2004]
Common sense isn't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 02-05-2004 12:38 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Interesting Issues?
Interesting? Well they have been thrashed before. But if you find them interesting you may open a thread on each and find that, just like fossil sorting, they are not supportable. Meanwhile, why don't you answer the point of this thread. simple says that the experts have it resolved. All you have to do is learn about that resolution and explain it to us here. Oh, unless, that is, simple didn't know what he was talking about. Which would also explain this staying away from this thread.
Common sense isn't
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
The density sorting has already been discussed. It doesn't work. Then you are asking for a chaotic process to sort millions of samples into a very clear structure. Do you really think that will work? [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-05-2004]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by johnfolton, posted 02-05-2004 7:37 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 85 by simple, posted 02-05-2004 8:51 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2