|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Even tree rings go last 12,000 years. Varve counts go back significantly further, and ice cores can go back hundreds of thousands of years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Funny how you think obvious truths are crazy, but then you think obvious lunacy is fact. No, since earlier stuff ends up on the bottom the order from bottom to top is a chronological order of deposition. Funny how you can’t work out something that obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Of course I didn’t say anything about the timescales. I explicitly excluded the timescales. So all you have is misrepresention.And foolish misrepresentation at that. You didn’t really think you could get away with it, did you ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: They make my point, though. And they justify the rejection of YEC. There is not one valid dating method that limits the age of the Earth to anything like 10,000 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Even when deception by omission is involved ? And how about your case where you invent facts ? The physical evidence is strongly against the Flood, which is why you have to invent facts, misrepresent opposing views and ignore opposing evidence or come up with wild fantasies in an attempt to explain it away.
quote: Funny how you call the truth a lie. You’ve already admitted that your objective is to prove a religious doctrine and we know you aren’t restricted by reason or evidence or honesty.
quote: And here you admit that YEC is based on religious belief. On a religious belief at odds with both the findings of history and science and even scholarly study of the Bible itself. YEC is primarily religious apologetics, of that fact there can be no doubt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Let’s review these as claims to produce a model.
quote: And the fact that you concentrate on narrow flumes and volcanic eruptions as your models of deposition - neither of which are plausible causes of anything more than a part of the geological record rather undermines that. Besides we have sedimentary strata not laid down by water, too.
quote: Claiming that an opposing model is inadequate does not mean that you have a model. Especially when the claim is dubious.
quote: You have shown no such thing. You haven’t even shown that the number of fossils is plausible if the Flood were the cause.
quote: You have shown no such thing. You haven’t even tried to show such a thing. All you hVe is a silly excuse for rejecting dating evidence.
quote: The evidence shows many cases of tectonic events that occurred before all the strata were deposited. The assertion that you have shown otherwise is just a falsehood.
quote: And another falsehood.
quote: In reality the correlation of independent methods - which we have - is very strong evidence for the reliability of dating methods. Ignoring that fact - as you do - hardly helps your case. So, in fact, all your claims to have a model are in Fact claims to have evidential support - and they are nearly all outright lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: You mean that they didn’t lie and pretend that the geological column is evidence for the Flood ? Don’t forget that your version of the geological column is largely made up and ignores significant evidence.
quote: It showed that the Biblical timescale didn’t allow enough time for the observed erosion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
First there is the assertion that it is an illusion.
This has never been backed up by any reasoning or evidence. In fact the order is an observation based on the techniques of relative dating that work to identify the order of deposition even if Faith’s Flood geology were correct. Second, there is the semantics argument. This is the assertion that the term order should not be used since Faith assumes that it is the product of pure chance. However, the term does not make any assumptions about the origin of the order, and if anything implies a non-chance origin it is the fact of the order itself. Third there is the assertion that there are no systematics to the order. This is only partially true. For instance no dinosaur remains were deposited before the Triassic system, and - with the exception of birds - none were deposited after the Cretaceous system. And yet dinosaurs were hugely variable in size and shape and inhabited a diverse array of habitats all over the world (also, to emphasise the unimportance of habitat there were large marine and flying reptiles which are also only found in the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous systems). There is a degree of systematics and it is related to taxonomy (and nothing else), which should really not be the case if the fossils were of animals all living at the same time. This point also refutes the claim that any order would suit evolution (curiously phrased as the denial of the existence of any order). If the order had no correspondence with taxonomy evolution would never have even got started. There are acceptable variations, but if - for instance - rabbits were only found in the Triassic (with no other changes from the observed order) evolution would have serious problems accounting for them. So, all in all Faith has done nothing to dent the fact that the order in the fossil record is very strong evidence against her Flood geology, or even to dent it as evidence of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: What is the timescale interpretation ? And what is the basis for your claim that nothing but subjective imagination defines it?
quote: You have no idea what you are talking about, do you ? (If you actually learned about the real science you might make sense)
quote: Oh dear, just more idiotic Creationist dishonesty. When you explain exactly what you think you are refuting I’ll explain the truth to you. That’s if you even know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Since Faith refuses to even clarify what she meant, let alone support her assertions I will dismantle her post without it.
The first point of course is the title. The order of the fossil record is a well-established fact and Faith never says anything to impugn it, so the title as written is both false and unsupported. The second is this:
The "fossil order" in the sense of the timescale interpretation of the observed physical sequence of fossils, is an illusion because it is nothing but subjective imagination that defines it.
Presumably Faith means the interpretation of the order of the fossil record as a sequence of different forms of life appearing and disappearing over time. This view was notably put forward by Georges Cuvier, a Catastophist and an opponent of the forms of evolution proposed during his life (he died before Darwin published). Cuvier made significant contributions to geology and taxonomy so his views should carry some weight. Cuvier did much of his own research, notably a study of the fossils found in the Paris basin. As a catastrophist he attributed the extinctions to massive floods - plural. In fact, even making no assumptions about how the strata were deposited the idea is quite a natural one. There is no viable sorting mechanism or even criterion that would explain what is actually seen. When it is recognised that the strata were deposited over a long period of time, then it becomes quite clearly true. So there is no need for any 19th Century ideas about progress. Now I will grant that evolution makes more sense of the order - giving partial reasons why we find particular forms at particular levels. But it is not necessary for the basic idea, and even then modern ideas of evolution work far better than simplistic ideas of progress (the discovery of tiktaalik being a case in point). So, Faith’s claims are both uninformed and lacking in merit. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: You can’t demolish an observed fact with irrelevant opinions. That really is ludicrous. And the strata do not represent time periods in any sense that is the slightest bit ludicrous. That’s just another of the claims you often make and never support or even really explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
No, jar. If she’d have thought about it she’d realise that she needed all the earlier Ice Ages to happen *during* the Flood. Her ideas aren’t silly enough this time!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: No, it’s not. It doesn’t have any assumptions of completeness or regularity. You really ought to understand what you are disagreeing with.
quote: Basically you are rejecting the whole idea of erosion and sedimentation - processes which are observed in the present day. The sediments that are being deposited now represent this period of time in exactly the same way (if you think otherwise you are just wrong). Any remains they contain that end up becoming fossils will be from this period of time. Please explain why you think that that is silly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
In what way does your alleged analogy work ?
To expand, it is hardly my fault that the absurdity is in the bits that don’t work. That’s your fault for relying on a bad analogy. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: More accurately we have material deposited at a particular time, which includes the remains of creatures that died about that time.
quote: You’re rejecting the idea that sedimentary rock is lithified sediment ?
quote: There aren’t any absurd implications. Geologists worked out the order of the strata, extending that order based on geometric relationships. Geologists discovered that there were distinctive assemblages of fossils in particular groups of strata and attached the labels to them, calling them systems. The time periods are simply the times in which the systems were deposited. This really all makes sense. You just reject it because it contradicts your religious dogma.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024