|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fish on the Ark? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... fully aware that evolutionary science dates Neogene fossils ... Can you tell me which "evolutionary science" is used to date fossils? Let's start with the natural science reference to biological sciences that include evolutionary biology:
quote: You can also check biological science and evolutionary biology for dating methods. Just curious. Just because you don't like something, even something scientific, that doesn't make it "evolutionary" or "evolutionist" - especially when what you are talking about is something unrelated to evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. If somebody has told you so, then they are telling you lies.
"Is the catastrophy theory wrong or are You mean like the geological (stratigraphy), chemical (detecting Iridium) and physical (radiometric) dating methods used to date the catastrophic world-wide demise of the dinosaur era by the impact of a meteor, as well as similar earlier catastrophes that also resulted in mass world-wide extinctions (hence their being real catastrophes)? That "catastrophe theory?" Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
How do you explain coral? Especially on mountain tops?
(hint) Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
noachian writes: "Is the catastrophy theory wrong or are evolutionary sciences dating methods wrong?" Why should I ask this question? Can you explain? I must be getting a bit dim in my old age.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4146 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Even if the dates were wrong, the flood still has a number of fatal flaws.
The fossil record does not show a homogeneous mix of primitive and complex organisms. If the flood happened, we should see T-rex fossils with humans and Anomalocaris. That doesn't happen. And the flood has a various number of serious heat problems. And what did the plants eat? Flooding the world with brine results in salted earth. Most plants, especially plants that herbivores eat, can't grow in soil that has material amounts of salt in it. And how did Noah maintain the animals?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grashnak Junior Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 5 From: Finland Joined: |
Why noone has found 100 million year old bear fossil, or human fossil? Because they did not live at the same time.
If there was one kind of fish befoure flood, where did sharks come.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Actually, the term "dolphin" is used to describe either a cetacean ("whale-thingy") or a fish which is also known as the mahi-mahi or dorado.
(Coryphaena - Wikipedia) A submariner's "dolphins" depict the fish. PSAnd, yes, I did post before having worked my way completely through the thread. Edited by dwise1, : PS {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
can I say mahi mahi mahi ... (that's a nice looking ... um, fish)?
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4146 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: All good questions. Don't hold your breath expecting an answer from creationists though. I don't expect them to even acknowledge my posts exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
dwise1 writes: Actually, the term "dolphin" is used to describe either a cetacean ("whale-thingy") or a fish which is also known as the mahi-mahi or dorado. Well, live and learn. So, the catastrophological viewpoint on the mahi-mahi would be that it is a kind of living fossil. It's obviously a micro-evolutionary intermediate between the original fish pair on the Ark and the cetaceans. Thanks to the three people on the thread who've spotted this possibility, as it could be a landmark in catastropho-paleontology, and a clue towards the understanding of post-flood marine hyper-microevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4146 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Isn't it kind of pointless to discuss that when so many factors all point to the outcome that the flood never happened?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grashnak Junior Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 5 From: Finland Joined: |
Why is there even a discussion about the flood if the creationists cant answer to simple questions?
I haven't got any answer to these questions I have, so I dont belive there was a flood, therefore the bible lies about it and I dont belive in god. Evolution just makes more sense to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I haven't got any answer to these questions I have, so I dont belive there was a flood, therefore the bible lies about it and I dont belive in god. Something of a leap of logic there, I fear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4146 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
I agree with the Doc. Just because the flood may be total hash as a literal event, doesn't mean the bible is false or that God doesn't exist. Furthermore, it does not prove that the concept of God, or Gods is false. The Abrahamic God's invalidity does not make all Gods invalid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
obvious Child writes: Isn't it kind of pointless to discuss that when so many factors all point to the outcome that the flood never happened? Errr... yes, obviously, my child.. Don't ask me about it. I'm not a catastrophologist.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024