Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-25-2018 10:51 AM
198 online now:
caffeine, jar (2 members, 196 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Upcoming Birthdays: Porosity
Post Volume:
Total: 838,949 Year: 13,772/29,783 Month: 1,218/1,576 Week: 159/271 Day: 11/89 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
124125
126
127128
...
193NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Percy
Member
Posts: 17665
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 1876 of 2887 (831273)
04-14-2018 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1734 by Faith
04-11-2018 3:46 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:

I don't know how the Flood did a lot of things, but that's better than you all thinking you know things that are nothing but mental cobwebs.

Faith, you've got to stop arguing pointlessly like this. Calling things names is not discussion. You can call our arguments mental cobwebs, and we could call your arguments (were you to make any) the same, and where would that leave us? Nowhere, because it's discussion of the evidence that counts.

If you "don't know how the Flood did a lot of things" then that leaves you in an incredibly weak position. You can't remedy that weakness by refusing to discuss evidence from the other side and instead just engaging in name calling like "illusion" and "timescale paradigm" and "mental cobwebs." You're not discussing the topic, you're avoiding it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1734 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 3:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6105
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1877 of 2887 (831274)
04-14-2018 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1849 by jar
04-14-2018 9:01 AM


Re: Permian Age et al
Jar writes:

A great start to a thread. Start it and lets discuss how reality is slightly more complex than you seem to think.

I started something very similar a while back

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=18903


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 1849 by jar, posted 04-14-2018 9:01 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17665
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 1878 of 2887 (831276)
04-14-2018 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1745 by Faith
04-11-2018 6:47 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
These are just too absurd, I have to reply. Responding to a few of your messages...


Replying to your Message 1745 to DWise1:

Faith in Message 1745 to dwise1 writes:

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.

When are you going to start? You've never offered any explanations that didn't violate at least one law of nature and usually several.

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.

But you're not focusing on any "physical facts." You're just name-calling.

The lie is on the other side where you insist on the term "religion" to discredit the scientific effort of creationists.

What "scientific effort of creationists?" If there were any science in creationism then creationists would have long since won the day. What creationists actually do is start with a conclusion then cherry pick a few facts that at least don't contradict them, then distort a few other facts, then make up a few other facts, then never explain major issues like how floods sort sediments by type and radiometric age and fossils.

If the Bible is true history,...

Like most accounts written by people, some is true, some false, some a mix, some of indeterminate veracity.

...as of course YECs believe, it's like any other source of actual fact,...

Facts are established by studying the real world, and so regarding the Flood the Bible is definitely not fact.


Replying to your Message 1746 to Tangle:

Faith in Message 1746 to Tangle writes:

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.

Things that happen leave evidence behind. We can see the evidence of what happened in the past. Radiometric decay leaves its products behind that can be measured.

Don't you think 17 years of not understanding radiometric decay is long enough, that maybe it's time to learn a little bit about what you're disregarding?

My whole effort is to prove the Flood accounts for the geological column, which I believe I've done many times over by now.

You haven't even done it once, not successfully. You've made many attempts at explanations that were full of mistakes and errors and misunderstandings and omissions that were immediately pointed out, but you've never successfully explained how the Flood could explain the geology of the planet.

And also that variation is built into the genome of each species 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.

You haven't even defined kind, let alone shown any evidence for built-in variation for kind evolution or for rapid evolution after the Flood, evidence for which is also completely lacking. To call this doing "pretty well" is pretty delusional.


Replying to your Message 1747 to JonF:

Faith in Message 1747 to JonF writes:

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.

Nothing in science is provable, but the evidence says that the laws of the universe were the same in the past as they are today going back billions of years.

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.

Will you be describing any of this evidence any time soon? Or will you be continuing your pattern of half-baked attempts at describing evidence that are immediately rebutted, and then after that claiming you already proved your point? Followed by breaking off discussion, then resuming a few days or weeks later making the same arguments as if they hadn't already been rebutted.


Replying to your Message 1749 to DWise1:

Faith in Message 1749 to dwise1 writes:

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 yet no field of endeavor has any problem studying the past, because what happens in the past leaves evidence behind. Even you concede this, for instance in forensics. How is a criminal leaving a fingerprint behind any different in principle from a radiometric isotope leaving daughter isotopes behind?

And all the other kinds of evidence validate the Flood.

Convincing people of lies through repetition has a long history of success in politics, but not science. You might try repeating things that are true, it would work much better.


Replying to your Message 1750 to Jar:

Faith in Message 1740 to jar writes:

since I've certainly provided more than enough evidence to prove the Flood.

Like I said before, you just describe some nonsense that is instantly rebutted, then after that just claim you've proved your point. Just like what you're doing right now.

how water lays down sedimentary strata

Before you were born science already understood how the products of erosion are transported to low points, usually bodies of water, where sediments gradually settle out.

how sedimentary strata make no sense in the timescale paradigm

This is just your mantra, not something you've actually demonstrated or that even has any meaning.

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

And yet you're unable to address the evidence itself, calling the fossil order an illusion while never actually showing how this is so.

how all the strata were laid down flat and straight before any kind of tectonic or volcanic disturbance affected them

You're going by a diagram of the Grand Staircase that doesn't contain that level of detail, but of course there were volcanic disturbances. It's the only way we would be able to radiometrically date. And the world is always experiencing tectonic forces and volcanism, just not everywhere all at the same time. During the period that the layers in the Grand Staircase region were being deposited there was certainly tectonic forces and volcanism at work elsewhere in the world.

how their initial flatness and straightness is consistent with the Flood and not with the timescale paradigm

And yet just as huge parts of the world are flat and straight today, so was the world in the past.

how dating methods can't be proved

Nothing in science can be proved. All the evidence says that the laws of the universe were the same billions of years ago as they were in the past. And radiometric isotopes leave behind daughter isotopes.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1745 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 6:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17665
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 1879 of 2887 (831277)
04-14-2018 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1755 by Faith
04-11-2018 8:55 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:

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

Gee, thanks so muchly for responding to the first 5% of my post, while despite feeling so poorly posting 24 messages to other people on this day. Obviously how you feel is no obstacle for you, and now a few days later you must be feeling much better and could post 50 or even a 100 messages a day, especially since so many of them are content-free and some even one-liners.

So how about responding to the rest of my post now? That is, if you have anything of substance to say in response, like something describing how the evidence supports your views, something that hasn't already been rebutted but that you just decided to ignore, like all the stuff you ignored in Message 1369.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1755 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 8:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1880 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 4:42 PM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29590
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1880 of 2887 (831281)
04-14-2018 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1879 by Percy
04-14-2018 4:25 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Gee, thanks so muchly for responding to the first 5% of my post.

I intended to get back to your post but due to the subsequent disparaging and discouraging remarks from so many here I don't feel like it now. Who knows, I may feel like it later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1879 by Percy, posted 04-14-2018 4:25 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2029 by Percy, posted 04-18-2018 1:39 PM Faith has responded

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


(2)
Message 1881 of 2887 (831282)
04-14-2018 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1750 by Faith
04-11-2018 7:10 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
In reading Percy's post, I see that I missed a few Faithisms.

When you said this:

how sedimentary strata make no sense in the timescale paradigm

It reminded me that in geology there is a definition that I learned many years ago. It is that the Devonian, for instance, can be a Period or a System.

A "Period" refers to a time span (in this case, the Devonian as it was originally described). A "System" refers to the rock record deposited during that Devonian time span.

There is no single Devonian stratigraphy. There are many, and the word System could refer to rocks of that age anywhere on the planet. In other words, the Navajo Sandstone is considered to be part of the Jurassic System deposited during the Jurassic time span, and the Old Red Sandstone is part of the Devonian System deposited during the Devonian Period.

I sometimes get the impression that Faith thinks each layer is equated with a certain Period. But actually that layer is part of a System that was deposited globally during the same time as the 'Devonian' (named for Devon) rocks in Great Britain. That System includes all kinds of rocks all over the world that include, but are not limited to, the Old Red Sandstone Formation.

In fact, a single layer or a 'Formation' (a sequence of related layers) can belong to more than one system.

As I have said, the rocks are just like a 'recording' of sedimentary layers deposited on the 'tape' of the geological timescale.

Well, I don't expect Faith to get this, but at least I tried to explain some of the embedded confusion of her posts.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1750 by Faith, posted 04-11-2018 7:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1882 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 6:06 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29590
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1882 of 2887 (831283)
04-14-2018 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1881 by edge
04-14-2018 4:59 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Well, I don't expect Faith to get this, but at least I tried to explain some of the embedded confusion of her posts.

:I do thank you for the attempt to help incorrigible me with my "confusion" and especially for being more specific than one usually encounters on this subject. Especially since you expect your offering to be rebuffed as I always have to expect mine to be. It's not fun, though being on the "right" side with lots of buddies ought to help soothe the pain from one lone stupid creationist's insults. Be that as it may...

In reading Percy's post, I see that I missed a few Faithisms.
When you said this:

how sedimentary strata make no sense in the timescale paradigm

It reminded me that in geology there is a definition that I learned many years ago. It is that the Devonian, for instance, can be a Period or a System.

A "Period" refers to a time span (in this case, the Devonian as it was originally described). A "System" refers to the rock record deposited during that Devonian time span.

There is no single Devonian stratigraphy. There are many, and the word System could refer to rocks of that age anywhere on the planet. In other words, the Navajo Sandstone is considered to be part of the Jurassic System deposited during the Jurassic time span, and the Old Red Sandstone is part of the Devonian System deposited during the Devonian Period.

Please forgive me but I continue to have the same problem. (Do geology students just swallow all this without questions or objections by the way?)

If there are "many" stratigraphies per time period, they still are all contained within the same rock layer or band of layers found around the world, right? Or however that should be said. Just different collections of sediment in different places, but all in the same band of rock or same level in the column, right? And all containing the same fossils.

Why should there be a rock System associated with a particular time period anyway? Ever? And one per time period -- it is only one because although there are different rocks in different places they all occur at the same physical level and all contain the same fossilized creatures, yes? Why should EVERY "time period" have such a sedimentary representative, a System, at all? Isn't there something a bit contra Nature about such an occurrence?

I understand that it would be hard to question something so utterly taken for granted, and which does in fact bear the label of the time period in all the representations of the geologic column, but I would think that someone might step back some time and ask why such a correspondence should exist at all, let alone so consistently. Why should there be a recognizable sedimentary System, set of layers or whatever, in any stack called the Geologic Column anywhere? One rock System per time period, and no time period without one. Is there a principle anywhere else in Nature that makes sense of this?

I sometimes get the impression that Faith thinks each layer is equated with a certain Period.

But System will do, it doesn't have to be a single layer, it's whatever is bracketed on those diagrams of the Geological Column that is identified as belonging to the particular time period. Sometimes it's one sediment, such as the Redwall limestone, sometimes it's a few identifiable layers. I'm not stuck on some single-sediment formula, it depends on what I see on the diagrams.

But actually that layer is part of a System that was deposited globally during the same time as the 'Devonian' (named for Devon) rocks in Great Britain. That System includes all kinds of rocks all over the world that include, but are not limited to, the Old Red Sandstone Formation.

But can you understand why this specificity doesn't really change my perspective? They all occur at exactly the same level around the world, and they all contain the same fossils. Isn't that how it was recognized in the first place that there is something systematic going on here? There is no time period without its rock System and no rock System without its time period. I can't see anything else anywhere in Nature that justifies such an idea. Yes here and there a particular rock System fails to show up , but the amazing thing is that it's just here and there while the rule is that each time period has its pet rock System all around the world. And separated by millions of years. (Even if two different Systems should occur close in time, those on the other side of each are millions of years away.

In fact, a single layer or a 'Formation' (a sequence of related layers) can belong to more than one system.

Are you sure you mean this? That a sequence of particular sedimentary rocks can belong to both the Devonian and the Silurian perhaps, or the Triassic and the Jurassic perhaps? But then they'd have to contain different fossils wouldn't they? Is this what you are saying?

As I have said, the rocks are just like a 'recording' of sedimentary layers deposited on the 'tape' of the geological timescale.

Now this is not at all clear. Could you find a different analogy to make it clearer?

Look, I'm thinking this through honestly, I don't have anything "religious" in mind as I'm thinking it through, I'm thinking only of layers of rock around the world and time labels assocfiated with them. I'm basing it all on conclusions I've come to about the physical situation over the last couple of decades. I'd really really appreciate it if even if you think me crazy or stupid or just wrong you'd allow that I'm honestly thinking about the physical world and raising honest issues.

After having thought about these things for so long it has become habitual to me to see things as I do and it does make me wonder how intelligent scientists can just take such truly weird contra-natural things for granted. I can answer "paradigm clash" but I'm nevertheless always astonished at just how adamantly ingrained it is.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1881 by edge, posted 04-14-2018 4:59 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1883 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 6:57 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1884 by edge, posted 04-14-2018 7:06 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1886 by edge, posted 04-14-2018 7:13 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1909 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2018 3:53 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 2039 by Percy, posted 04-19-2018 1:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29590
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1883 of 2887 (831284)
04-14-2018 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1882 by Faith
04-14-2018 6:06 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
You all keep complaining that a worldwide Flood wouldn't sort things, but I have to wonder why time would sort things physically either, meaning sort them into layers. Why shou8ld any particular collection of living things be found in a particular layer of rock? Why aren't fossils found buried willy-nilly instead of in neat rock layer graves? Why aren't they buried at different depths just becaue the earth is usually lumpy with hills and valleys in any time span. I mean even if you insist that they had to be buried at different levels because of evolution, why in identifiable straight rock layers? Representing what looks sort of like a clear order of living things over the taxonomic system? And it certainly seems that if a creature, say a rabbit, were to be found out of "place" (or "time") it would be over the supposed millions of years assuming earthquake and tectonic displacements. This is all way too pat, and, really, unnatural.

I'm sure this could be said better but it's a start at saying something that's been bothering me.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1882 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 6:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1888 by jar, posted 04-14-2018 7:21 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1910 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2018 4:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


(2)
Message 1884 of 2887 (831285)
04-14-2018 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1882 by Faith
04-14-2018 6:06 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Please forgive me but I continue to have the same problem. (Do geology students just swallow all this without questions or objections by the way?)

Actually, my post was not meant to clear things up for you. It was more to explain to everyone else why you are so confused.

If there are "many" stratigraphies per time period, they still are all contained within the same rock layer or band of layers found around the world, right?

No.

Or however that should be said. Just different collections of sediment in different places, but all in the same band of rock or same level in the column, right? And all containing the same fossils.

They happen to contain similar fossils, yes. But they are not in the same band of rocks.

Why should there be a rock System associated with a particular time period anyway? Ever?

For convenience. It is often necessary to talk about rocks of the same age.

And one per time period -- it is only one because although there are different rocks in different places they all occur at the same physical level and all contain the same fossilized creatures, yes?

Not one layer.

Why should EVERY "time period" have such a sedimentary representative, a System, at all? Isn't there something a bit contra Nature about such an occurrence?

If sedimentation were continuous, yes. However, that is not what happened.

I understand that it would be hard to question something so utterly taken for granted, and which does in fact bear the label of the time period in all the representations of the geologic column, but I would think that someone might step back some time and ask why such a correspondence should exist at all, let alone so consistently.

Why wouldn't it?

Because you think so? These are all based on normal geological processes that we see going on today.

Why should there be a recognizable sedimentary System, set of layers or whatever, in any stack called the Geologic Column anywhere?

Because depositional environments change through time.

One rock System per time period, and no time period without one.

Except where there was no deposition or where it has been removed.

Is there a principle anywhere else in Nature that makes sense of this?

Make sense of your strawman? No.

But can you understand why this specificity doesn't really change my perspective?

I didn't expect it to change your perspective. My intent was to help others understand your confusion, since the conversation never really goes anywhere. I might add that, contrary to known processes that we see in the geological record, you essentially see all rocks deposited in one year and hence are the same age. That is the basic reason why you are so adamant against the mainstream reality.

They all occur at exactly the same level around the world, and they all contain the same fossils.

What level are you talking about, stratigraphic or structural level?

Isn't that how it was recognized in the first place that there is something systematic going on here? There is no time period without its rock System and no rock System without its time period.

Right, but the concepts are different. You seem to equate them.

Things are more complex that you think and geology is not something that you can teach yourself.

I can't see anything else anywhere in Nature that justifies such an idea.

I'm sorry it doesn't follow the logic that you prefer. But it works.

Yes here and there a particular rock System fails to show up , but the amazing thing is that it's just here and there while the rule is that each time period has its pet rock System all around the world.

I don't see the problem here.

Are you sure you mean this? That a sequence of particular sedimentary rocks can belong to both the Devonian and the Silurian perhaps, or the Triassic and the Jurassic perhaps? But then they'd have to contain different fossils wouldn't they? Is this what you are saying?

Let me be more general and say that, as Walther's law predicts, stratigraphic units are not restricted to a given time or Period. As transgression occurs, the age of a seashore deposit become younger as the shoreline moves across the continent.

Now this is not at all clear. Could you find a different analogy to make it clearer?

To you, I doubt it.

Look, I'm thinking this through honestly, I don't have anything "religious" in mind as I'm thinking it through, I'm thinking only of layers of rock around the world and time labels assocfiated with them.

This has been established by convention long before you came upon the scene.

I'm basing it all on conclusions I've come to about the physical situation over the last couple of decades. I'd really really appreciate it if even if you think me crazy or stupid or just wrong you'd allow that I'm honestly thinking about the physical world and raising honest issues.

Your thinking is inadequate. You ignore evidence and known processes. You prefer mysticism over science and learning. You strategy consists of denial and adherence to a religious myth.

I and others have enumerated your errors elsewhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1882 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 6:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1885 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 7:12 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29590
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1885 of 2887 (831286)
04-14-2018 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1884 by edge
04-14-2018 7:06 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Ah well, so much for fair and honest debate. Nothing you said here makes any more sense than what I was already dealing with.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1884 by edge, posted 04-14-2018 7:06 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1898 by edge, posted 04-14-2018 10:37 PM Faith has responded

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


Message 1886 of 2887 (831287)
04-14-2018 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1882 by Faith
04-14-2018 6:06 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
(dreaded double post)

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1882 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 6:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1887 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 7:21 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29590
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1887 of 2887 (831288)
04-14-2018 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1886 by edge
04-14-2018 7:13 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Ah well, so much for fair and honest debate. Nothing you said here makes any more sense than what I was already dealing with.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1886 by edge, posted 04-14-2018 7:13 PM edge has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30864
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1888 of 2887 (831289)
04-14-2018 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1883 by Faith
04-14-2018 6:57 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:

You all keep complaining that a worldwide Flood wouldn't sort things, but I have to wonder why time would sort things physically either, meaning sort them into layers. Why shou8ld any particular collection of living things be found in a particular layer of rock?

Although this has been explained to you a brazillion times in a brazillion threads in a brazillion ways, fossils are found buried in the layer that was the surface at the time the critter lived along with the geology and environment that existed at the time the critter lived.

It really is that simple.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1883 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 6:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1889 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 7:28 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29590
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1889 of 2887 (831290)
04-14-2018 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1888 by jar
04-14-2018 7:21 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Although this has been explained to you a brazillion times in a brazillion threads in a brazillion ways, fossils are found buried in the layer that was the surface at the time the critter lived along with the geology and environment that existed at the time the critter lived.

So why don't we see a similar flat straight layer of sediment extending across huge spans of geography now, and collecting all the creatures familiar in our current time period? Of course it would have to extend through cities and towns and highway systems and so on and so forth, collecting lots of those artifacts too. The absurdity and physical impossibility of flat straight layers defining time periods escapes you all. Too bad. I guess the cosmos is going to have to roll up like a scroll before you see it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1888 by jar, posted 04-14-2018 7:21 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1890 by jar, posted 04-14-2018 7:34 PM Faith has responded
 Message 1892 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 7:54 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1897 by edge, posted 04-14-2018 10:35 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30864
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1890 of 2887 (831291)
04-14-2018 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1889 by Faith
04-14-2018 7:28 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:

So why don't we see a similar flat straight layer of sediment extending across huge spans of geography now, and collecting all the creatures familiar in our current time period?

For the same reason only the Cult of Ignorance see such things in the geological record; such things are local just as they are today. There are flat straight layer of sediment extending across huge spans of geography today and also not flat straight layers of sediment extending across huge spans of geography today but regardless of the particular local you look at today what you see are the critters alive today living in the environment of today.

Yes Virginia, we see the same geological processes going on today as went on in the past. And no Biblical Flood either now or in the past.

Edited by jar, : appalin grammur


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1889 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 7:28 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1891 by Faith, posted 04-14-2018 7:36 PM jar has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
124125
126
127128
...
193NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018