Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 11:32 AM
25 online now:
edge, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,618 Year: 3,655/19,786 Month: 650/1,087 Week: 19/221 Day: 19/36 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   ID, Creo's and Fossils
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
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 yet responded

    
Confidence
Member (Idle past 4396 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 17 of 30 (365993)
11-25-2006 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by DrJones*
11-25-2006 1:40 AM


Re: ... whatever
Alright, I was a bit careless with my response.

I do not believe atheism must result in sociopaths. I just believe that without God, we have no right to decide whats right or wrong. WHy? well it all becomes relative, if it is up to us to decide what is right and wrong, then who is right? One person say rape is bad, the rapists says other wise. So how you solve this problem? well install a government that enforces a certain standard that most people agree with.

But the concept is this, without God, there really is no right or wrong.
I am sorry that I said that atheism results in no moral code. There just is no way to check to see who's standard is right and who's wrong.

Here is the reason why even atheists can be 'good';
Everyone has a conscience which still holds on to some image of God.
Therefore we do not need the Bible or a law to keep us from complete sociopathic behaviour. And some atheist think its better to hold on to these 'feelings' of what is right and wrong, then there are others (even Christians) who chose to ignore what is right, and do what pleases them. This does not mean that they do away with all that is right, but they pick and chose what best suites them.

I hope that this is a bit more clear and less ignorant than my previous comment.

Edited by Confidence, : No reason given.


Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by DrJones*, posted 11-25-2006 1:40 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 11-25-2006 8:44 PM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 19 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 11-25-2006 8:45 PM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 21 by kuresu, posted 11-26-2006 12:12 AM Confidence has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 18 of 30 (365997)
11-25-2006 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Confidence
11-25-2006 8:04 PM


Re: ... whatever
quote:
One person say rape is bad, the rapists says other wise. So how you solve this problem?

To shamelessly steal the answer from another member, how does a Christian solve this problem? Do you really think that a rapist is going to listen to someone say, "God says rape is bad?"

-

quote:
if it is up to us to decide what is right and wrong, then who is right...?

There just is no way to check to see who's standard is right and who's wrong.


That is what democratic consensus is all about. We discuss these issues, and then set up our society to reflect what we as a society believes. If you disagree with the consensus, then you roll up your sleeves and continue to push for your beliefs. How is this different between an atheist and a Christian?

-

quote:
well install a government that enforces a certain standard that most people agree with.

Exactly. It works the same for atheists as it does for Christians.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Confidence, posted 11-25-2006 8:04 PM Confidence has not yet responded

  
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 2367 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 19 of 30 (365998)
11-25-2006 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Confidence
11-25-2006 8:04 PM


Re: ... whatever
confidence writes:

I just believe that without God, we have no right to decide whats right or wrong.

So Dr. Jones* is right, without the threat of eternal damnation you could not control yourself.

confidence writes:

But the concept is this, without God, there really is no right or wrong.

Both god(s) and the concept of right or wrong are human constructs.

confidence writes:

Everyone has a conscience which still holds on to some image of God.

Since god(s) do not exist this is false.

confidence writes:

And some atheist think its better to hold on to these 'feelings' of what is right and wrong

Great, another christian swaggering in to proclaim that they know what atheist are feeling, that sad.

confidence writes:

I hope that this is a bit more clear and less ignorant than my previous comment.

Yep, you have no moral compass, you do not now how to distinguish from right or wrong, you need a non existent super being to keep you on the straight and narrow.

Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given.

Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given.


Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Confidence, posted 11-25-2006 8:04 PM Confidence has not yet responded

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 20 of 30 (366005)
11-25-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rob
11-25-2006 1:25 AM


Upright forest fossils
scottness writes:

You may want to see how they handle polystrate fossils...

Not very well really. Much ado about nothing....

Upright fossils are not a problem for a old deep time earth at all. There are numerous examples of upright forests being buried in a upright position from alluvial deposits, subsidence from earthquakes, tsunamis, local floods, land slides, volcanic events, etc.

Here are just view case of sub-fossilized forests on their way to become "polystrate" fossils.

http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/earthquakes/bigone/detective.html

http://www.admin.mtu.edu/urel/breaking/2000/forest.html

Notice the use of a chainsaw on a 10K year old upright tree.

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_67603.htm

Quote from the above article "The ages of more than 25 landslides have been estimated by radiocarbon dating of associated sub-fossil wood."

and...

"Buried forests are found in most river valleys that drain Cascade Range stratovolcanoes. "

So what is the problem?


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

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 592 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 21 of 30 (366006)
11-26-2006 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Confidence
11-25-2006 8:04 PM


Re: ... whatever (and off-topic, so let's not continue this here)
you all don't really research alternative moral codes before you speak, do you all?

ever hear of utilitarianism? it is not dependent on God(s). what it says, in a nutshell, is this:

you have a man drowning. you have a rescue crew. if they rescue this man, they will all die (including the rescuee). which is better for society? That the rescue crew lives on to save others, or that they all perish, to never be able to help society again?

keep in mind that nutshells do have a way of getting something(s) wrong.

read up on John Stuart Mill, and read his essay on utilitarianism. oh, and as a good shocker, he argues in there that religious moral codes are actually based off of utilitarianism. figure that one out.

oh, and one last thing (I think).
God is not required for absolutes to exist. last I checked, God isn't required for math (unless you are arguing that Noah's flood did happen). Just for an example, mind you.

Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Confidence, posted 11-25-2006 8:04 PM Confidence has not yet responded

    
Confidence
Member (Idle past 4396 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 22 of 30 (366138)
11-26-2006 6:53 PM


Origin of information

math... did we create math, or was math already created for us to observe? The latter is obvious. We just made the symbols to represent it. For the equations of how objects move were and are already in place for the objects to obey, we just observe the equations and put symbols to them.

Information... random? No, it is a purposeful arrangement of some material that conveys a message from a sender to a recipient. If it was random we wouldn't call it information, we would call it ... randomness.

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.

Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic.


We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by anglagard, posted 11-26-2006 7:09 PM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 11-26-2006 7:35 PM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 11-26-2006 7:44 PM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-27-2006 2:59 PM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 27 by AdminModulous, posted 11-27-2006 5:33 PM Confidence has not yet responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
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 yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 14 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 24 of 30 (366147)
11-26-2006 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Confidence
11-26-2006 6:53 PM


Interesting and profound question.
quote:
math... did we create math, or was math already created for us to observe?

This is a pretty controversial question in the philosophy of mathematics. In my professional opinion (college mathematics instructor; quit school just shy of the PhD), mathematics is invented.

Other people insist it's discovered.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Confidence, posted 11-26-2006 6:53 PM Confidence has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3274 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 25 of 30 (366150)
11-26-2006 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Confidence
11-26-2006 6:53 PM


Re: Origin of information
Confidence,

Scientific to say information, observed mathematical equations comes from unguided processes? Not really, we don't observe that.

A meaningless statement.

What we do observe is life comes from life

Which of course doesn't mean it never did.

information comes from information, mathematical equations --> already there.

We CERTAINLY never observed that!

Hmmm.. conclusion? Randomness did all this. We call this evolution --> (and people call this science).

Pah! Show me a scientific cite that quotes that evolution is all about randomness.

Wake up people.

Indeed. You need to wake up & learn about the theory you think is so wrong. The very fact you think NS is random belies your ignorance.

Mark


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

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 26 of 30 (366343)
11-27-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Confidence
11-26-2006 6:53 PM


Re: Origin of information
What did that have to do with fossils?

Oh, your sig's rubbish, too.


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

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 27 of 30 (366364)
11-27-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Confidence
11-26-2006 6:53 PM


Re: Origin of information
You seem to bring the origin of information into each and every thread you come across. Please stop that. Thanks.

Keep on topic. Comments can be forwarded to the appropriate link in my sig (the second link 'General discussion...'). Do not reply to this post.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Thread Style Guides for EvC and Thread Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


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

    
platypus
Member (Idle past 3832 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 28 of 30 (367826)
12-05-2006 5:51 PM


Topic
I was reading this thread hoping for a response to the actual topic by an actual creationist. Instead, things got horribly off-topic. Is it too late to ask- how do you (creationists) explain fossils?
    
42
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 30 (368361)
12-08-2006 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kuresu
05-12-2006 12:56 PM


I was brought up creationist and I never had any problem with fossils or any other scientific observations - even though I was always scientifically minded. I think its because I never allowed such earthly cares to interfere with my place at the centre of Gods universe. These days I see myself as an ape.

All the best.


Human Evolution in 42 Steps
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kuresu, posted 05-12-2006 12:56 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2138 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 30 of 30 (368396)
12-08-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by kuresu
05-12-2006 12:56 PM


While I don't agree with Glenn Morton, I've always found him very interesting and honest. I thought I'd give you one way an unusual Christian geologist handles the origin of man:

quote:
The only way to fit the scriptural account with the scientific observations is to have Adam and Eve be Homo habilis or Australopithecus.

That's at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm, and he has a whole page on human evolution and Genesis. He's very intent on Genesis being literal, but he's also trying to be honest about scientific discoveries, so his theories are quite entertaining! I've emailed him a few times, and I like him, though I find all his attempts to save a literal Genesis extreme.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by kuresu, posted 05-12-2006 12:56 PM kuresu has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019