Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 1741 of 2887 (831073)
04-11-2018 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1725 by Faith
04-11-2018 3:14 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Wrong. You have no clue about the wide range of independent dating methods that destroy your fantasy.
First, "radiometric dating" does not mean a dating method. It refers to a wide variety of inpendent methods based on different and independent processes so fundamental to the operation of the Universe that any change in them would have gigantic Univrese-wide effects. The near-perfect agreement between these different and independent methods (your pathetic attempts to claim otherwise notwithstanding) is solid evidence of their accuracy to anyone who knows enough to evaluate it.
In non-radiometric methods, thermoluminescence dating goes to 500,000 years. Various effects of cyclic astronomical processes such as Milankovitch cycles easily extend to 25-50 million years with progress on extending that continuing. Heliosesmology (sun quakes) go back to the origin of the a Solar system and yield an age of 4,570,000,000 years. Lake varves easily go back to 90,000 years (lake Suigetsu). Ice cores go to 160,000 years. Coral, stalactite, stalagmite growth rings. The list goes on and on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1725 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 3:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1748 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 7:02 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1742 of 2887 (831075)
04-11-2018 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1732 by Faith
04-11-2018 3:40 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
A motley collection of dates, and none of them justify the billions of years craziness.
A wide-ranging and consistent collection of thousands of dates covering from 10 years to billions of years.
Your ignorance does not affect reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1732 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 3:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1747 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 7:01 PM JonF has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1743 of 2887 (831076)
04-11-2018 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1731 by Faith
04-11-2018 3:38 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
The other methods you all use don't point to more than ten thousand years.
So you accept that the earth is at least 10,000 years old?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1731 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 3:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1744 by dwise1, posted 04-11-2018 5:59 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 1746 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 6:53 PM Tangle has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1744 of 2887 (831078)
04-11-2018 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1743 by Tangle
04-11-2018 5:17 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
So you accept that the earth is at least 10,000 years old?
Actually, most creationists will use that figure of 10,000 years as a smokescreen, because if they went full-biblical and used 6,000 years, then that would expose the fundamental lie of "creation science" that it's based on science instead of religion. It's legal fact that they cannot have evolution barred from public schools for religious reasons, which is why they created the deliberate deception of "creation science" which claims that they oppose evolution for purely scientific reasons that have nothing to do with religion.
Also, many if not most creationists don't really care how old the earth is; they just want to prove science wrong about anything they can find (or think that they have found). On another forum, a YEC used the sea salt claim to show that the earth is millions of years old. When I said that I thought he was supposed to believe that the earth was no older than 10,000 years, he replied that he had no problem with the earth being millions of years old, just so long as it's not BILLIONS of years old as science says it is.
That taught me that they don't want to prove creation or other YEC beliefs, but rather they just want to destroy science, or at least render it inert. And to that end, they will attack science at every turn, trying their utmost to prove science wrong about anything and everything.
Mileage on individual creationists may vary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1743 by Tangle, posted 04-11-2018 5:17 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1745 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 6:47 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1745 of 2887 (831079)
04-11-2018 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1744 by dwise1
04-11-2018 5:59 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
I believe the earth is 6000 years old but I focus on trying to prove the Flood is the explanation for most of the geological facts we see.
the fundamental lie of "creation science" that it's based on science instead of religion.
There is no lie where the focus is on the physical facts in the effort to prove the Flood based on those facts. The lie is on the other side where you insist on the term "religion" to discredit the scientific effort of creationists. If the Bible is true history, as of course YECs believe, it's like any other source of actual fact, on which science can certainly be based.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1744 by dwise1, posted 04-11-2018 5:59 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1758 by PaulK, posted 04-12-2018 12:18 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1878 by Percy, posted 04-14-2018 4:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1746 of 2887 (831080)
04-11-2018 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1743 by Tangle
04-11-2018 5:17 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
No, I don't accept ten thousand or any of the other dates, I was just comparing them to the billions since all those different dates are used by the OE/ToE paradigm. I think all those dates are falsified on the basis that there is no way to confirm them because we can't confirm them because we can't see into the past.
My whole effort is to prove the Flood accounts for the geological column, which I believe I've done many times over by now. And also that variation is built into the genome of each speci9es or Kind and can produce a great deal of diversity within the Kind, but that there is no evolution from one species or Kind to another. I think I've done pretty well with that one too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1743 by Tangle, posted 04-11-2018 5:17 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1747 of 2887 (831081)
04-11-2018 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1742 by JonF
04-11-2018 5:17 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Dating by any means is only one avenue of evidence and it is all compromised by the fact that it makes assumptions about the distant past that are unprovable. Meanwhile there are many other kinds of evidence, which happen to show that the timescale paradigm is impossible but that a worldwide Flood accounts for most of the geological facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1742 by JonF, posted 04-11-2018 5:17 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1761 by Pollux, posted 04-12-2018 12:46 AM Faith has replied
 Message 1767 by Pollux, posted 04-12-2018 3:14 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1748 of 2887 (831082)
04-11-2018 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1741 by JonF
04-11-2018 5:05 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
See previous post. All dating methods are unprovable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1741 by JonF, posted 04-11-2018 5:05 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1751 by JonF, posted 04-11-2018 7:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1749 of 2887 (831083)
04-11-2018 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1739 by dwise1
04-11-2018 4:18 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
You can never go back to the distant past to check if any of your dating methods are valid. The whole dating enterprise is false for that reason. And all the other kinds of evidence validate the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1739 by dwise1, posted 04-11-2018 4:18 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1750 of 2887 (831084)
04-11-2018 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1740 by jar
04-11-2018 4:30 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
You have no idea what constitutes a
model, method, mechanism, process or procedure
since I've certainly provided more than enough evidence to prove the Flood.
how water lays down sedimentary strata
how sedimentary strata make no sense in the timescale paradigm
how the huge numbers of fossils are consistent with the Flood and not the timescale piecemeal deposition model
how the timescale interpretation of the "fossil order" has no objective basis, it's all pure imagination
how all the strata were laid down flat and straight before any kind of tectonic or volcanic disturbance affected them
how their initial flatness and straightness is consistent with the Flood and not with the timescale paradigm
how dating methods can't be proved
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1740 by jar, posted 04-11-2018 4:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1752 by JonF, posted 04-11-2018 7:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1754 by jar, posted 04-11-2018 8:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 1760 by PaulK, posted 04-12-2018 12:38 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 1881 by edge, posted 04-14-2018 4:59 PM Faith has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1751 of 2887 (831086)
04-11-2018 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1748 by Faith
04-11-2018 7:02 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Dating methods do not depend on any assumptions other than that there is a real world we can explore with our senses.
Formally, all of our science and experiences are unprovable, even yours. There are some things which are so firmly established that they are called facts. For example, the age of life and the Earth.
Your hysterical and unfounded evidence-free rants do not affect that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1748 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 7:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1752 of 2887 (831087)
04-11-2018 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1750 by Faith
04-11-2018 7:10 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
You haven't provided evidence of how anything happened. Just unsupported assertions of what must have happened assuming that your impossible fludde actually happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1750 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 7:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 1753 of 2887 (831088)
04-11-2018 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1698 by Faith
04-11-2018 5:42 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
I just noticed this odd circumstance. Last Thursday night you posted this over in the Gun Control III thread in your Message 189:
Faith in Message 189 of the Gun Control III thread writes:
Perhaps you are right, I don't know and I don't have the energy to try to find out. Please just ignore whatever I've said, I have to stop posting, I'm tired, I feel rotten, I can't deal with any of this right now although I keep trying. I have to stop. Thanks.
And that was the end of the discussion, but then the very next morning apparently here you were in this thread all full of vim and vigor, posting as many as 15 or 20 messages a day. What happened to "I have to stop posting, I'm tired, I feel rotten"? Anyway, congratulations on your remarkable recovery.
Faith writes:
Faith writes:
The fossil order shows what the OE/ToE paradigm tells it to show as it were.
The one overwhelming fact of the fossil record is that fossils increasingly differ from modern forms with increasing depth in the geologic column. This ordering cannot be the result of global flood because water is incapable of ordering anything except by size, weight, density and shape, and none of those factors explain the order of the fossil record.
I think this is one example of how that interpretation is an illusion. How about the depth of the column itself? Those found in the lowest levels were probably the marine creatures that died off most completely, and the higher you go in the column the more you are getting into creatures that survived the Flood in greater numbers. Those at the highest levels of course survived because they were represented on the Ark.
This is so oddly wrong it's hard to know how to respond. Marine strata with marine fossils are found at all levels of the geological column, from top to bottom. Marine fossils are neither less common nor less numerous the higher you go in the geologic column.
The distribution of fossils could not be caused by a flood. Mammals are only found in strata back to Pennsylvanian layers. Dinosaurs are only found in strata from shortly after the beginning of the Triassic up until the end of the Cretaceous. Reptiles are only found in strata back to late Carboniferous layers. Fish are only found back as far as early Silurian strata. Multicellular life is only found back as far as Archean strata. No flood, global or of any other sort you might imagine, is capable of such sorting.
We wouldn't recognize any that completely died off because they wouldn't be represented in our world. It's not a matter of primitive versus modern, it's just a matter of what lived and what died. If it died out completely, we wouldn't see anything like it that is living.
This is another tautology. Yes, we won't find living examples of extinct species.
As long as you think in terms of the timescale paradigm you'll think in terms of modern versus primitive and in terms of supposed events occurring at different levels because you view them as time periods. But the Flood paradigm gives a completely different interpretation.
The sedimentary layers themselves are evidence of lengthy time periods. It takes a great deal of time for rock to erode into the sediments that are gradually transported to lower elevations and eventually usually water, and then more time for the sediments to settle.
Radiometric dating confirms that the sedimentary layers represent the great ages their composition suggests.
The geological strata and the fossils embedded therein are a record of the past. This is a belief that you share with everyone else. The difference is that you believe they are a record of events of 4500 years ago, while the evidence says that the record extends back billions of years.
Yes, and you believe that it is a record that shows changes over time whereas I believe it all happened at once and is over and done with.
More accurately, we all believe, you included, that the sedimentary layers were deposited successively one after another. Not even you believe "it all happened at once and is over and done with." What you actually believe in is a complex sequence of events involving successive waves depositing ever higher layers upon land, and between the waves animal life would scamper out onto the mud flats to create tracks, dig burrows, create worm holes, build termite nests, etc., then when the waters receded eroded the layers just deposited and carved canyons.
So we all believe the sedimentary layers were deposited over time. The question is how much time, and for the answer we look to the evidence. The sedimentary evidence says long time periods. The fossil evidence says long time periods. The pace of evolution says long time periods. The radiometric evidence says long time periods.
What you understand as extinction events is in reality nothing but the nonappearance in the geological column of particular fossils the theory tells you should be in a particular layer/time period but aren’t.
If the disappearance from the fossil record didn't indicate extinction, for example of the dinosaurs, then where are they today?
The Flood wiped them out, not some event in some past time period. Their nonappearance in a particular layer only means that they weren't in a location to be picked up by the Flood. ABE: Or as I thought by the end of this post, they had already all died in earlier phases of the Flood. /abe
Yes, yes, we already know what you believe. The question is what evidence can you bring to the table. What was happening in your flood that dinosaur fossils the world over appear only in strata between the Cretaceous and Triassic, inclusive?
Contrary to your claim, the disappearance of the dinosaurs from geologic layers higher than the Cretaceous really does seem to indicate extinction.
Only to those who think in terms of the timescale paradigm. From the Flood point of view it has nothing to do with time, it's all about space or geography, location, or unknown factors having to do with how water behaves. Not time.
Stop it with the paradigm nonsense. Either you have evidence for what you think or you don't.
We all agree the sedimentary layers took time to deposit - no one believes they were deposited instantaneously. The question is what evidence can each side bring for the time they think it took. You seem to have no evidence, just paeans to a wonderful paradigm.
Disappearance from the fossil record is a very strong (but not conclusive) indicator of extinction - I don't think any fossil species ever thought extinct has turned up alive,
Coelacanth (which I see you discuss next).
Coelacanth is an order, not a species, so again, I don't think any fossil species ever thought extinct has turned up alive.
Everything has evolved since the Flood,...
There is no evidence of any particular increase in the amount of evolutionary change over the past 4500 years.
...so what you are thinking of as the "modern" type of coelacanth most likely just wasn't around at the time of the Flood.
Just for this sentence assuming the Flood was real, you're forgetting the possibility that such fossils exist but haven't been found yet.
That would be why today's coelacanth is different from that in the great graveyard of antediluvian life.
That *could* be why, if you had any evidence for what you believe, and if what you believe wasn't contradicted by all available evidence.
Just the usual continuing variation that all life undergoes over generations, otherwise known as microevolution.
The modern Coelacanth species are different species, genera and families than the fossil ones, which is change beyond microevolution.
In other words today's coelacanth didn't exist at the time of the Flood,...
The Flood didn't exist at the time of the Flood, either.
...it's a descendant of those that did but that earlier generation have all since died out.
It's possibly a descendant of one of the extinct species we know about, but with fossils there's no way to know for sure. They're obviously related, but it's impossible to tell whether it's an ancestor/descendant relationship.
It's not necessary that an earlier generation completely die out, but that's probably what happened.
Hey, something true. Congrats!
See the Wikipedia article on Lazarus Taxon for a number of other examples of taxa once thought extinct. Interestingly (though a different topic), the same article has a long list of conservation species thought to have gone extinct sometime during the last couple centuries but since rediscovered.
Which wouldn't particularly support either of the paradigms.
Hence the parenthesized comment "though a different topic".
A supposed decrease in numbers of species is nothing but the presence of particular fossils in smaller numbers within a rock than were present in a lower layer.
You seem to be trying to express a tautology.
I'm trying to maintain an awareness of the actual physical phenomenon in the physical world...
How the natural world actually behaves is probably your weakest area.
...since otherwise it will get co-opted by the illusory timescale paradigm explanation of the fossil sequence.
Since you have no understanding of how the natural world works you need have no concern it will be co-opted. Assigning inappropriate labels to things names like "illusion" to the fossil order and "paradigm" to your religious views is no substitute for evidence.
Significant extinction events, ones where many species simply disappear, are recorded in the fossil record at several points in time. For example, 75% of the species on Earth disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous, including the dinosaurs (except the birds).
All that most likely means is that they'd already died in earlier stages of the Flood. It was killing everything in its path so by the time it got to the higher levels there wouldn't have been much left alive.
Describing fantasies is the opposite of describing evidence. A flood could not produce dramatic changes in fossil populations from one strata to the next, let alone produce strata.
I'd have to spend time thinking through this part of your argument but at first glance it strikes me as the usual strange illusion...
You've been provided a great many facts. Calling facts illusions doesn't make them any less facts.
...created by the timescale paradigm being imposed on simple physical facts,...
You know or accept very few facts about the real world. You can't rebut the facts that have been provided by merely saying things like, "That's merely the illusion of the timescale paradigm." People could as easily reply, "And your view is merely the illusion of the flood paradigm." Now what? How about examining the evidence?
...inventing all kinds of scenarios out of different kinds of sediments that are nothing but mental constructs having nothing to do with the actual reality.
Again, you have a weak grasp of how reality works. You think things like sediments are no longer contributing to the geologic column, that they can't deposit on a slope, that floods sort fossils, sediments and radiometric elements all at the same time.
A Mount St. Helens issue came up recently. Was that answered already? If not, the "strata" after the Mount St. Helens eruption were not actual strata, were not lithified sedimentary deposits. They were just unconsolidated mud, ash and rock resulting from pyroclastic flows. They blocked the normal flow of water which later easily eroded paths through them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1698 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 5:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1755 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 8:55 PM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1754 of 2887 (831089)
04-11-2018 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1750 by Faith
04-11-2018 7:10 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
FAITH writes:
You have no idea what constitutes a
jar writes:
model, method, mechanism, process or procedure
since I've certainly provided more than enough evidence to prove the Flood.
quote:
how water lays down sedimentary strata
how sedimentary strata make no sense in the timescale paradigm
how the huge numbers of fossils are consistent with the Flood and not the timescale piecemeal deposition model
how the timescale interpretation of the "fossil order" has no objective basis, it's all pure imagination
how all the strata were laid down flat and straight before any kind of tectonic or volcanic disturbance affected them
how their initial flatness and straightness is consistent with the Flood and not with the timescale paradigm
how dating methods can't be proved
None of those are evidence Faith, they are simply unsupported assertions and not evidence of any Biblical Flud.
But the truth is that the conventional theories do provide a model that explains the evidence seen in reality; that the processes we see going on today are the processes that happened in the past, that change leaves evidence and that biological samples found together lived at the same time and in the environment were they were found.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1750 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 7:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1755 of 2887 (831090)
04-11-2018 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1753 by Percy
04-11-2018 7:52 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Percy writes:
I just noticed this odd circumstance. Last Thursday night you posted this over in the Gun Control III thread in your Message 189:
Faith writes:
Perhaps you are right, I don't know and I don't have the energy to try to find out. Please just ignore whatever I've said, I have to stop posting, I'm tired, I feel rotten, I can't deal with any of this right now although I keep trying. I have to stop. Thanks.
And that was the end of the discussion, but then the very next morning apparently here you were in this thread all full of vim and vigor, posting as many as 15 or 20 messages a day. What happened to "I have to stop posting, I'm tired, I feel rotten"? Anyway, congratulations on your remarkable recovery.
I noticed that too and don't know how to account for it. I didn't stop feeling lousy, though, I've felt bad for some time now, tired, sleep too much, but for some reason I felt I had to respond on this thread anyway. Sorry
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1753 by Percy, posted 04-11-2018 7:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1879 by Percy, posted 04-14-2018 4:25 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024