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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID, Creo's and Fossils
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 16 of 30 (365904)
11-25-2006 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rob
11-25-2006 1:25 AM


Polystrate Fossils
Scottness asserts in response to Kuresu:
I was wondering how IDer's and Creo's handle fossils
You may want to see how they handle polystrate fossils...
Here's how the rebuttal from Bill Birkeland is done around here: Message 1
I particularly like msg 5,7, and 12
quote:
The polystrate tree "rebuttals", actually explanations instead of real rebuttals, said absolutely nothing about "Evolutionists" not believing in uniformitarianism. These interpretations, i.e. messages 4 and 7 of this thread, are excellent examples of the use of uniformitarianism to interpret the geologic record. The modern processes described in the rebuttals, i.e. the episodic accumulation of fluvial and deltaic sediments in a gradually subsiding coastal plain, as in case of the Joggins polystrate trees, along within sea level rise, coastal subsidence, the deposition of layers of sediments by major floods, and the deposition of a layer sediment by a lahar are all events that have been observed by geologists on modern flood or coastal plains. Using these modern processes and the characteristics of the sediments that they created to explain the formation of polystrate trees and the sediments enclosing them are excellent examples of how uniformitarianism is used to interpret the rock record.
I am quite baffled and amazed how anyone can state the so-called "polystrate tree rebuttals" were "composed of saying that Evolutionists in our current age do not believe in uniformitarianism" when uniformitarianism is an integral part of these rebuttals / explanations. In fact, the so-called "polystrate tree rebuttals" are clear examples of how uniformitarianism can be used to interpret how polystrate trees are formed contrary to what Mr. Soracill stated above.
Also, I am quite puzzled why Mr. Soracill talks about "Evolutionists" in this context. In a discussion about the origin of polystrate fossils, whether a person accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory is completely irrelevant. How polystrate fossils form has nothing to do with evolution, rather it a matter of sedimentology, pedology, stratigraphy, and other disciplines that can be independent of evolutionary theory. For example, an Old Earth creationist can be quite comfortable with the conventional explanation of how polystrate fossils formed and, still not accept evolution as a valid scientific theory.
Beyond these posts are all the citations, should you care to follow.
Here's how I did it in the great debate under point 73: Message 75
I feel you should review this latter thread as well, as the essay apparently may contain many of your other arguments against science. Please feel free to start a peanut gallery thread if you would like to support S1WC with any helpful hints.
Edited by anglagard, : clarity
Edited by anglagard, : added content
Edited by anglagard, : increase evidence.
Edited by anglagard, : better quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rob, posted 11-25-2006 1:25 AM Rob has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 23 of 30 (366144)
11-26-2006 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Confidence
11-26-2006 6:53 PM


Re: Origin of information
Confidence states:
Scientific to say information, observed mathematical equations comes from unguided processes? Not really, we don't observe that. What we do observe is life comes from life, information comes from information, mathematical equations --> already there. Hmmm.. conclusion? Randomness did all this. We call this evolution --> (and people call this science).
Wake up people.
So according to this, all life comes from preexisting life, and can't change or be added to just like all information comes from preexisting information and can't change or be added to?
So, in the entire history of science and technology, no new information has been discovered?
What a weird analogy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Confidence, posted 11-26-2006 6:53 PM Confidence has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024