Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2018 5:58 AM
198 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 195 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,051 Year: 11,874/29,783 Month: 896/1,642 Week: 4/306 Day: 4/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Fossil Ordering Re-Visited
Peter
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 46 of 53 (15257)
08-12-2002 3:54 AM


I dunno ... I go on holiday for a week and a discussion
on fossil ordering (sans timescale) turns into a
'how old is all this stuff?' hoo-ha

Seriously though ... I wasn't interested in how old the GC
is considered to be, but in the idea that the order which
has been observed in the fossil record was caused by hydrodynamic
sorting + survivability/mobility.

Hydrodynamic sorting, based upon my reading of research papers
looking into the effects of flooding on archeology and paleontology
suggest to me that the process has far too many variables to
be considered deterministic ... that is it cannot explain a consitent
ordering, because it is, itself, a near as dash-it, random process.

Mobility/survivability doesn't hold up for me, because there is
no logical reason why some elephants would have survived longer
than some stegosaurs or apatosaurs or some-such ... nor why
survivabity would lead to an ordering which could be interpreted
as a progression in time (however long or short).

For fossils to have ALL been laid down after the flood, and the
representation in the record due to things like reproductive
rate is a new one on me.

Suggesting that mammals tracks and remains wouldn't be in the
fossil record cause they breed slower (what about mice and rats?)
and don't live on mud flats (but they do have to go to rivers or
lakes or whatever to drink ... don't they?) also seems to be an
unsupportable assumption.

I might start a co-existence thread based upon ecological
considerations like, for example, why would you get pumars (say)
and velociraptors in the same environment ... I'm not familiar
with a modern environment in which there are two large (relative to man) predatory species co-existing (could be wrong on that though ... absence
of knowledge isn't knowledge of absence )


Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 10:23 PM Peter has not yet responded

    
Randy
Member (Idle past 4108 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 47 of 53 (15882)
08-21-2002 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Peter
08-12-2002 3:54 AM


Perhaps the creationists don't want to discuss fossil ordering anymore because they know that all attempts to reconcile the fossil record with a worldwide flood fail miserably. Ecological zoning is really no better than hydrodynamic sorting. Or maybe water lilies outran pine trees in a race to higher ground.
Randy
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Peter, posted 08-12-2002 3:54 AM Peter has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by wj, posted 08-21-2002 11:50 PM Randy has not yet responded

    
wj
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 53 (15889)
08-21-2002 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Randy
08-21-2002 10:23 PM


Would a creationist like to explain why mangroves took so long to be buried in the flood? One would think that they are naturals to be buried early and appear at the bottom of the geological column. why isn't this the case?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Randy, posted 08-21-2002 10:23 PM Randy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Peter, posted 08-28-2002 4:18 AM wj has not yet responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 53 (15913)
08-22-2002 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by edge
08-09-2002 2:28 AM


quote:
Oops, you left out the obvious one: the old, creationist paradigm was supplanted by evolutionary theory. So, do you admit that even creationism "can be wrong?"

It could be wrong--but there are two positions left-old earth creationism (progressive creationism) or ID-- intelligent design


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by edge, posted 08-09-2002 2:28 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by edge, posted 08-23-2002 1:18 AM blitz77 has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4392
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 50 of 53 (15978)
08-23-2002 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by blitz77
08-22-2002 9:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
quote:
Oops, you left out the obvious one: the old, creationist paradigm was supplanted by evolutionary theory. So, do you admit that even creationism "can be wrong?"

It could be wrong--but there are two positions left-old earth creationism (progressive creationism) or ID-- intelligent design


And neither has much science going for it. So which do you agree with? By the way, most IDists are also OE as far as I know. In fact, some IDists are also evolutionists. Behe for example. It sounds like we have cleared up the old earth part of the problem for you, anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by blitz77, posted 08-22-2002 9:48 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by blitz77, posted 08-24-2002 12:35 AM edge has responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 53 (16016)
08-24-2002 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by edge
08-23-2002 1:18 AM


Not yet. You'll have to build me a time machine unfortunately to clear up the old earth part of the problem.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by edge, posted 08-23-2002 1:18 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by edge, posted 08-25-2002 11:00 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4392
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 52 of 53 (16053)
08-25-2002 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by blitz77
08-24-2002 12:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
Not yet. You'll have to build me a time machine unfortunately to clear up the old earth part of the problem.

Sorry, all I've got is evidence. If that is insufficient, then you will simply have to abandon science and live with your myths.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by blitz77, posted 08-24-2002 12:35 AM blitz77 has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 53 of 53 (16158)
08-28-2002 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by wj
08-21-2002 11:50 PM


They don't appear to be able to explain anything else
in the fossil record very well ... so I'm guessing not
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by wj, posted 08-21-2002 11:50 PM wj has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018