Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 9:54 PM
27 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,129 Year: 5,166/19,786 Month: 1,288/873 Week: 184/460 Day: 29/97 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Polystrata fossils
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2710 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 46 of 50 (422152)
09-16-2007 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Ihategod
09-16-2007 3:01 AM


Re: dealing with evidence
I've never seen a plant run, but I have seen animals run. Why couldn't we assume that the animals headed for higher shelter during the flood? This would explain this quite well.

That would work great if thats what was seen in reality. The problem is that plants are not found at the bottom and the animals at the top. If such a simple obsevation was to be found out there, don't you think that people would have noticed?

Had there been a flood I would expect animals to head for higher ground. How would you explain the lack of such an observation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Ihategod, posted 09-16-2007 3:01 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 586 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 47 of 50 (422157)
09-16-2007 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Ihategod
09-12-2007 6:45 PM


Some people like truth more than money
HEWG writes:

If geologists ran into something supernatural they would use ways to naturally explain it, or they would deny it. You think these scientists are objective truth telling machines who are massively equipped with the highest state of morals and ethics. If they ain't getting no grant money fo' day work cuz uncle bob thinks Godidit, well hell, theys goin' ta find nother way of splainin' things.

You have a very parochial view of the world. A lot, perhaps most, of the geology that knocked out your Young Earth view was done by (mostly Christian) amateurs in Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They paid in time and money to find out things, rather than being paid.

There was a huge burst of enthusiasm for geology and the earth sciences in general in the early nineteenth century, and some of the leading figures involved were clergymen.

They wanted to find out truths about their God's creation, not to perpetuate myths, as you're doing.

200 years ago, HEWG, there were loads of people with a more sophisticated and advanced view of the world and the universe than the one you seem determined to cling to today.

It's 2007, not 1807. You're in a time warp. When are you going to start catching up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Ihategod, posted 09-12-2007 6:45 PM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 48 of 50 (422166)
09-16-2007 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Ihategod
09-16-2007 3:01 AM


Re: dealing with evidence
What I am suggesting in one way, is that if the physics and/or physical relationships were different in any way it could be suggested that it couldn't be under any but the exact same circumstances to be validated by accurate testing. My hypothetical example would be an air tight room filled with pure oxygen (old world) then something caused the door to open and the result would be a mixture of elements that is testable now. If you want to call that magic, thats fine. Although I loosely suggested it, I would rather discuss the evidence within modern parameters.

This means nothing. It doesn't explain anything nor does it provide any testable mechanisms. All it amounts to is wishing.

Why would we expect this? And what evidence is there to suggest that this isn't the case? I was under the impression that coal was made up of organic material which could include animals.

The premise from the "Hovind Theory" was that plant material became coal and animal material became oil. That is what was being tested against the evidence (and found lacking).

I've never seen a plant run, but I have seen animals run. Why couldn't we assume that the animals headed for higher shelter during the flood? This would explain this quite well.

But no all animals can run fast, so some would always be caught. Also, if we assume the global flood there is a point at which all those running animals run out of high ground. Therefore there should be piles of animal fossils at the tops of hills. Not found.

What do you think would be evidence for a differing set of physical laws, if that were the case? Also, why would any scientist claim something like supernatural causes even if they did find "evidence" for it?

Evidence of things not behaving as they do now, whereas we see the opposite -- from the Oklo fossil reactors to Super Nova 1987A.

It is uniformitarianism. The treatment of the evidence, no matter how you spin it, is still based off of uniformitarianism. Now, I don't know how anyone could verify a contrary claim to this idea, but it doesn't mean uniformitarianism is a fact. This evidence does in fact support a single viewpoint because it relies on fundamental flawed assumptions. And some would argue for atheistic reasons.

When you redefine terms to mean things not the way they are used by other, you enter the realm of talking about fantasy and delusion.

Looks like they ruled out a single catastrophic event because they interpreted the data in way agreeable with the modern view of geologic time scale.

Looks like they ruled out a single catastrophic event because they were unable to find any possible evidence for it. If that is bias, then it is in the physical evidence and not in the interpretations based on evaluation of all the evidence.

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Ihategod, posted 09-16-2007 3:01 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 3978 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 49 of 50 (422448)
09-17-2007 6:17 AM


1.) The flood model where there was only ever one universal flood and no flooding ever since does not exist. It is a straw-man that keeps cropping up in this thread.

2.) There is no single scenario that can account for all polystrate fossils.

3.) Most polystrate fossils are indicators of rapid burial.

4.) That talkdeceptions article in the O.P. is lame even for them. They don't even get to tell lies about the issue because they never get around to what the issue is. Maybe they can pat themselves on the back for a 'lie of omission' - that's all I can figure.

5.) All fossils are polystrate vs. slow 'geology'. Any time they claim something like "each millimeter of depth in this rock represents 40,000 years" and that rock contains fossils - well, they're saying those bones stayed put out in the open for (meaurement in mm x 40k) years and fossilized.

6.) Combine 3 and 5 and see how much evidence there is everywhere for flooding. See how few places in the entire world even qualify as reasonable sites for slow deposition. Put two and two together.

7.) Or don't. If you're not convinced it's not because of the evidence. HEWG's been working his tail off; and me being lazy, I've given a concise summary. Shallow and deep have both been covered, so what's left?


Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by The Matt, posted 09-17-2007 7:56 AM CTD has not yet responded

    
The Matt
Member (Idle past 3651 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 50 of 50 (422456)
09-17-2007 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by CTD
09-17-2007 6:17 AM


5.) All fossils are polystrate vs. slow 'geology'. Any time they claim something like "each millimeter of depth in this rock represents 40,000 years" and that rock contains fossils - well, they're saying those bones stayed put out in the open for (meaurement in mm x 40k) years and fossilized.

You complain of a strawman and then write this!?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by CTD, posted 09-17-2007 6:17 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019