Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 11:53 PM
117 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,175 Year: 13,781/21,208 Month: 3,263/3,605 Week: 49/556 Day: 49/54 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
13141516Next
Author Topic:   How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 166 of 226 (669856)
08-04-2012 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Portillo
08-04-2012 12:48 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
Hi Portillo,

It's a start, but you will need to pay a little more attention to the details.

Let me warn you that you will be confronted with evidence that you will find difficult to understand or assimilate, not because the evidence is difficult, but because it does not match your worldview. This is due to cognitive dissonance, something that affects anyone confronting evidence that does not match their worldview (see link for more on this or to discuss it).

... A global flood is a mechanism for rapid, massive, fossilization of billions of creatures. ...

.... and most of the fossil record just does not match this prediction. In science we say that such failed predictions mean the hypothesis is highly questionable and needs to be adjusted to better fit the evidence ....

RAZD writes:

How do you explain dessicated fossils aka naturally formed mummies?

There are some fossils being formed today, but large scale fossilization is not occuring ...

... and you completely avoided the question, so let me try again: how do you explain fossils that were formed by being completely dried out.

The mountains were underwater during the flood. How did these fossils get thousands of feet above sea level? They didnt climb up the mountain and bury themselves. They were smashed and entombed, under the ocean in mud, ...

Except that there are fossils that are delicate and preserved completely in their natural state -- fan coral and brachiopods for example (and both grow fixed to the bottom) -- that would be broken by such a process.

... and pushed up after the flood. After the flood, the mountains went up and the basins went down. So you have a complete reconfiguration of the topography and geography of the world. ...

Please cite chapter and verse where the bible states this happens. It needs to be specific, not someone's interpretation. Otherwise you are just invoking magic imagination to explain fantasy instead of using the real evidence.

... the mountains went up and the basins went down. So you have a complete reconfiguration of the topography and geography of the world. ...

Which is what science says occurs over millions of years. Curiously scientists have measured the current rates and compared them to the times needed to make the mountains we see, and there is more than enough time for this to occur through tested scientifically studied mechanisms, mechanisms that correlate between dates and mountain ranges all over the world ... mountain ranges that do NOT date to the same periods ALL fit this pattern.

If you have an issue with dates\time then I suggest you start at Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and we can work on clearing that issue up first. The earth IS old, and it is time to accept that fact.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Portillo, posted 08-04-2012 12:48 AM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Portillo, posted 08-24-2012 8:38 PM RAZD has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1127 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 167 of 226 (669858)
08-04-2012 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Portillo
08-04-2012 12:48 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Portillo writes:

Panda writes:

Could you tell me: how long do fossils take to form?


Fish dont float to the bottom of the ocean and are fossilized over millions of years. They are annihilated by scavengers before they hit the ground. Natures way of stopping the ocean bottoms from becoming huge garbage dumps. How long do fossils take to form? They are entombed by a catastrophe very rapidly, so they dont have a chance to decay or be eaten by scavengers. A global flood is a mechanism for rapid, massive, fossilization of billions of creatures.

Thanks for replying.
Could you tell me: how long do fossils take to form?

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Portillo, posted 08-04-2012 12:48 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5268
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 168 of 226 (669861)
08-04-2012 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Portillo
08-04-2012 12:48 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
How did these fossils get thousands of feet above sea level? They didnt climb up the mountain and bury themselves. They were smashed and entombed, under the ocean in mud, and pushed up after the flood.

Well, Leonardo da Vinci investigated fossils up in the Alps about half a millenium ago, and found thick beds of clams and such in growth position- upper ones attached to lower shells - just like they grew off Italy at the time. No smashing involved.

About 140 years ago, Thomas Henry Huxley wrote an essay on the chalk that forms the White Cliffs of Dover as well as a lot of the subsurface of England. He lays it out much more clearly than I could: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE8/Chalk.html
It isn't too long - go give it a read and let's discuss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Portillo, posted 08-04-2012 12:48 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2301
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 169 of 226 (669865)
08-04-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Portillo
08-04-2012 12:48 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Hi Portillo,

I see you have declined to answer most of the questions that have been put to you. This is a shame. We're not asking you these questions as some sort of ridiculous "gotcha" moment; we are asking you because it does not seem that you have any explanation. As it happens though, palaeontology does have an explanation. For as long as you present nothing, mainstream science will win by default.

Please, at least take a shot;

Why do we only see trilobites from the Cambrian to the end of the Permian? Why no later? Why do we never see them fossilised together with crabs or lobsters, when they would have shared the same habitat?

Why do we only see flowering plants appear from the Cretaceous onwards? Why do we never find them in older rocks, even when we do find plants such as ferns and club mosses?

And if some mechanism somehow sorted these organisms into discrete layers, why did it not affect corals or brachiopods, or other groups that persist in the fossil record back to the early Cambrian or beyond?

I understand that you may not have answers to these questions - not least because the answers don't exist on account of the fact that Flood Geology is nonsense - but if you want your creationist model to be taken seriously, you need to make the effort to address these issues.

Oh, by the way;

There are some fossils being formed today, but large scale fossilization is not occuring anywhere in the world. Dr. Dana Desone, said "While dinosaurs were the most famous organisms to become extinct at the end of the cretaceous. The tragedy was far more widespread. 65 to 75% of all earths organisms vanished. Hardest hit were the land animals. In all although 88% of the land dwelling species vanished, as many 90% of those inhabiting fresh water survived. Marine organisms were not spared, almost 50% of the marine species died off. Without question, the KT extinctions were a global disaster of unimaginable proportions." Where on earth do we find extinction-catastrophe events happening like this today?

You ought to realise that the extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous is not the only such event recorded in the fossil record. The Permian-Triassic event is another, quite distinct from the KT event. There are others, take a look;

The KT event is labelled "End K" (end of the Cretaceous). You can see how it is not the only such event, nor even the biggest, merely the most famous, since it wiped out those ever-popular dinosaurs. What we are seeing here is a succession of disappearances from the fossil record. Yet each is followed by a radiation of new species, that took advantage of the opportunity. Care to explain how a single flood could create so many completely separate extinctions?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Portillo, posted 08-04-2012 12:48 AM Portillo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2012 6:29 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 170 of 226 (669875)
08-04-2012 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Granny Magda
08-04-2012 10:21 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Why do we only see trilobites from the Cambrian to the end of the Permian? Why no later? Why do we never see them fossilised together with crabs or lobsters, when they would have shared the same habitat?

There were malacostracans in the Cambrian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Granny Magda, posted 08-04-2012 10:21 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Granny Magda, posted 08-04-2012 9:06 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2301
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 171 of 226 (669880)
08-04-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dr Adequate
08-04-2012 6:29 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
There were malacostracans in the Cambrian.

Sure, but not crabs or lobsters, unambiguous examples of which only appear from the Jurassic onwards.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2012 6:29 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2012 9:09 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 172 of 226 (669881)
08-04-2012 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Granny Magda
08-04-2012 9:06 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Sure, but not crabs or lobsters, unambiguous examples of which only appear from the Jurassic onwards.

OK.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Granny Magda, posted 08-04-2012 9:06 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2747
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 173 of 226 (669883)
08-04-2012 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Portillo
08-04-2012 12:48 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
dwise1 writes:

So bottom-dwelling animals lived on mountain tops at 20,000 feet above sea level?

The mountains were underwater during the flood. How did these fossils get thousands of feet above sea level? They didnt climb up the mountain and bury themselves. They were smashed and entombed, under the ocean in mud, and pushed up after the flood. After the flood, the mountains went up and the basins went down.

And, actually, you finally get most of it right. The fossils were buried where they had lived and then subsequently that stratum ended up elsewhere through geological processes. That is exactly what geologists also say, though you disagree with them as to how long that took. As well as your ignoring all the other geological strata. And, yes, localized flooding did and continues to happen. Geologists are fully capable of telling rapid from slow depositation, so they're not idiots. The history of geology is born out of geologists looking for evidence of Noah's Flood, which they never have found.

But that's not what you were saying in Message 155, to which I was replying. In that message, you invoked two old, old standard "creation science" nonsense claims (read "bullshit"), which claim both that fossils were of animals living at those elevations and that those animals who could see the Flood coming and were "swifter of foot" fled to higher elevations. Here is what you wrote, in case you wish to forget:

Good question. If there was a global flood, why dont we find fossils mixed up, such as humans, horses and cows at the bottom? The question is though, do humans, horses and cows live at the bottom of the ocean? What you would expect to find is fossils buried in their habitat, although you do find marine fossils on continents. When a catastrophe such as a tornado, earthquake, or flood happens, who knows first, the animals or people? The animals usually know whats coming, so they get out of there.

During the Indian Ocean Tsunami, even though the lives of 250,000 people were destroyed, few animals were killed. You know why? Because the animals had a premonition of the coming catastrophe and fled for the hills. But which animals cant get out of there? The corals, sponges, hydroids, arthropods, sea anemones, crustaceans, and all the little bottom dwelling animals who cant get away. The reason why land animals were able to get away is because the flood took months and months, as the waters came higher and higher. So many drowned and werent fossilized.


Nowhere in that scenario did you speak of strata in which fossils were buried being raised to other elevations. Instead, you spoke only of life living in or moving to other elevations. The scenario to which I was responding was one in which topography did not change -- lower and higher elevations then were the elevations at which everything was buried.

Your "reply" is to completely change your story. You are not sticking to your story in any way. You know full well that you have been caught in a lie and so you are making up yet another lie.

Typical creationism in action.

Please answer me this question. Your actions indicate that you believe that your god must be served through lies and deception. According to Christian doctrine, which Christian deity is served by lies and deception? Let me give you some clues in case you're stuck: 5 letters, starts with "S", ends with "n", has a "t" in the middle, both vowels are "a". Need any more clues?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Portillo, posted 08-04-2012 12:48 AM Portillo has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 174 of 226 (669902)
08-05-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by jar
07-30-2012 2:14 PM


Re: Cumberland Bone Cave
Yeah, and speaking of the Cumberland Bone Cave:

Because the bones in the cave were moved around by water and scattered by the feet of trapped animals, there are no intact skeletons. Rather, the bones were buried and preserved like a complex fossil salad with bits and pieces mixed together helter-skelter into a matrix of bone, clay and calcium carbonate.

Thoughts, Portillo?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 07-30-2012 2:14 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 885
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 175 of 226 (669904)
08-05-2012 5:39 PM


Topic alert!
There's a lot of discussion that doesn't appear to be about Australia going on. It seems to have become a thread about fossils in general. Quite interesting, probably deserves a thread of its own.

Can posters make an effort to tie into the Australia question from here on out.


Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Portillo, posted 08-24-2012 8:43 PM AdminModulous has not yet responded

    
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1575 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 176 of 226 (671400)
08-24-2012 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by RAZD
08-04-2012 6:42 AM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
RAZD writes:

and most of the fossil record just does not match this prediction. In science we say that such failed predictions mean the hypothesis is highly questionable and needs to be adjusted to better fit the evidence...

It fits the prediction of mass-catastrophe and mass-death. The fossil chart that appears in the textbooks doesnt actually exist anywhere on the planet. The fossil chart has a gradual process from marine invertebrates, to vertebrate fish, amphibians, reptiles, man etc. However, 95% of the fossil record is marine invertebrates. 95% of the remaining fossils are plants. The rest is mostly fish and insects. The land dwelling vertebrates make up less than 1% of the record. Is it any surprise that the planet is filled with water, marine fossils, sedimentary deposits and fossil graveyards? The planet is covered with evidence of a watery catastrophe.

RAZD writes:

Please cite chapter and verse where the bible states this happens.

In Psalm 104, it says "Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains." Like a blanket of water covering the earth. Preflood mountains were different to todays mountains. They were lower in elevation, they had no fossils, and were not covered in ice and snow. "The mountains rose; and the valleys sank down, to the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a boundary that they may not pass over; that they may not return to cover the earth." After the flood, the mountains rose to new altitudes, the ocean basins sank down, and the waters retreated to the ocean shoreline, the boundary of the ocean.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. - Numbers 14:21

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 08-04-2012 6:42 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Coyote, posted 08-24-2012 8:53 PM Portillo has responded
 Message 179 by foreveryoung, posted 08-24-2012 9:15 PM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 180 by jar, posted 08-24-2012 9:17 PM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2012 4:43 PM Portillo has responded

  
Portillo
Member (Idle past 1575 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 177 of 226 (671401)
08-24-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by AdminModulous
08-05-2012 5:39 PM


Re: Topic alert!
Kangaroos/wallabies got to Australia from a great land bridge that connected Indochina to Australia.

As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. - Numbers 14:21

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by AdminModulous, posted 08-05-2012 5:39 PM AdminModulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 09-02-2012 4:24 PM Portillo has responded
 Message 187 by dwise1, posted 09-02-2012 4:52 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5789
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 178 of 226 (671404)
08-24-2012 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Portillo
08-24-2012 8:38 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
The land dwelling vertebrates make up less than 1% of the record. Is it any surprise that the planet is filled with water, marine fossils, sedimentary deposits and fossil graveyards? The planet is covered with evidence of a watery catastrophe.

The problem for proponents of a "great flood" is that the "marine fossils, sedimentary deposits and fossil graveyards" don't occur at a single specific time. They are spread out over >3 billion years.

Doesn't that detract from the credibility of your argument?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Portillo, posted 08-24-2012 8:38 PM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Portillo, posted 09-09-2012 3:02 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 879
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 179 of 226 (671408)
08-24-2012 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Portillo
08-24-2012 8:38 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
portillo writes:

In Psalm 104, it says "Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains." Like a blanket of water covering the earth.

Couldn't this be referring to the time when the earth was formless and void and the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Portillo, posted 08-24-2012 8:38 PM Portillo has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28841
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 180 of 226 (671409)
08-24-2012 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Portillo
08-24-2012 8:38 PM


Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions, round 2
There is absolute evidence that there has never been a worldwide flood as described in the Bible.

Anyone who tries to assert that there was a Biblical flood is simply wrong and should be dismissed.

It really is that simple.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Portillo, posted 08-24-2012 8:38 PM Portillo has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
13141516Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017