|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Sorry I missed a bit out here (OOPS ). I meant that the
prediction made by the biblical ACCOUNT is not born out by the fossil record." --Great were getting somewhere atleast, that is because the biblical account of creation doesn't have anything to do with the point of burrial, thus the fossil record. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"While I am clearly on the same side of the debat, and would agree that
creationsim is NOT science," --Atleast we can agree on something "I contend that it IS falsifiably to adegree." --Technically, but if your going to find potential falsification your not going to find it in creationism, its sort of a word defining a conjoined others. So pick at the leg of Creation-science, not creationism, theres nothing to pick at in creationism, Creation science is meaty, if I must use analogy. "Creationism is, fundamentally, based on the literal interpretationof the Bible." --No, faith is, Creationism has a basis under two classifications, faith-bible, and science (creation science). "It is for this reason that creationists argueagainst evolution and other natural explanations for life, the universie and everything." --Funny how I've never seen myself resort to it. "IF a literal interpretation of the Bible can be shown to not fitthe evidence of the real-world the doubt must be cast on the creationsist contention." --That sure would rip a leg off, you can't really survive with one leg. So I would invite discussion, I have been unable to find such a problem with scripture, and this seems to be the place to discuss it. "Then maybe the creationist community will begin a proper invesitgationinto the origins of life ... rather than simply stating that the Bible says this, so its true." --Yeah mabye, though it was started a long time ago. "I have rarely seen arguments from creationists which support thecreation story ... they seem to prefer to attempt to under-mine belief in a natural explanation." --Undermining natural explination? Who's resorting to that? As I stated earlier, we need to take a gander at what we are arguing. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"if they require burial most of the time, then would humans be able to affect that? for instance a human feels that he should bury the animal as they are also going into exctinction. would that affect anything? would it make a young earth more feasable?"
--If this did not take place, or they missed one, then your going to have to look through pre-cambrian rock strata for it, as the Flood caused all them layers. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"So you are admitting that the ACCOUNT of creation in the
Bible is NOT accurate, or at least NOT to be taken literally ?" --See what your arguing, and your evidence supporting your argument. Your missing fundementals. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: And by what mechanism do you propose this? Haven't you been beaten up enough on this argument?
quote: Um, tell us, TC... When we have a flood what do we see floating down the river to the sea, at least once in a while? The problem is that you have NO credible diversions from the known fossil sequence. Oh, sure we can move one phylum or class back a Period or so, but no major departures. For example there are no clams in the early Cambrian. Why not? Were they more intelligent than the trilobites? Or faster?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"And by what mechanism do you propose this? Haven't you been beaten up enough on this argument?"
--The mechenism of the Flood. I havent needed to break a sweat in the argument peter proposes against me, simply because he implies that the Creation account should show contrast towards the Fossil record. "Um, tell us, TC... When we have a flood what do we see floating down the river to the sea, at least once in a while?"--Your going to see fish...Its all part of the mechenism for burrial in the flood. "The problem is that you have NO credible diversions from the known fossil sequence. Oh, sure we can move one phylum or class back a Period or so, but no major departures."--See above. "For example there are no clams in the early Cambrian. Why not? Were they more intelligent than the trilobites? Or faster?"--I don't think we know proper anatomy in trilobites to figure this equation, or do we have a good knowledge on what trilobite chracteristics in anatomy are or were? ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Perhaps because you can't see where this is going yet I will agree, that the fossil record shows a burrial sequence, andthat existence sequence is inferred by evolutionists (like myself). As I understand it (please correct if wrong) your assertion is thatthe burrial sequence in the fossil record has nothing to do with the ACCOUNT of creation, only with the Great Flood. So again lets try to look at what one would expect to see fromthe your interpretation of the flood. Prior to the flood ALL animals existed in roughly their current form. Apart from those animals taken aboard the Ark by Noah and hisfamily, all (presumably land) animals were killed in the deluge or resulting global flood (a time span of roughly a year ... flood waters abating by the 10th Month, then Noah opens the Ark 40 days later to dry earth). During the time of the flood dead animals would sink to the bottom(eventually), come to rest, and some would be buried. Some of these would be in conditions whereby fossilisationwould occur. Fossilisation is NOT a selective process. So long as the correctconditions are prevalent, remains will be fossilised. ANY animal could have become fossilised. Under these conditions we should expect to see NO SEQUENCE inthe burrial record, because the waters contained a number of ALL animals and their death and subsequent burrial would be related to the individual ability to survive in the water. What we see (and there are NO anomalies to the best of my knowledge)is a sequence of burrial which shows increasing complexity of form from the oldest burrials to the most recent. Fossilised remains are restricted in the orders of animals represented. There are NO fossilised lions, say. Fossilised ammonites ALWAYSand ONLY occur in layers lower than dinosaurs despite ammonites being aquatic and able to survive a flood. Before debating the specific examples (and they are off the topof my head) think about what in the flood scenario could have caused the consistent sequencing that IS SEEN in the fossil record. Explain exactly how this sequence could occur by way of a flood. Explain why the animals considered by evolutionists to have emergedmore recently are NEVER found in a fossilised state, when other animals which in biblical terms should have co-existed with them do. quote: Mechanism for burrial in a flood? Why should burrial during a flood be anything other thanrandom ? quote: That's an evasion. I noticed you like to point out these littledebating tactics so I thought I'd join in The question is about the consistency of sequence in the fossilrecord. This is exactly predicted by an evolutionary explanation for lifeon earth. It is exactly contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation, mixed up ina global flood and deposited at random on the flood bed. [This message has been edited by Peter, 02-18-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I've just remembered your swimming pool.
Try this. Empty out the water.Fill the pool to a depth of, say, 1 metre with soil. Place a variety of animal remains on the soil. Deluge the soil until the pool is full. Allow the water to subside (you may have to unclog your drain/filter). Dig down at five sites across the surface area of the pool andnote the sequences of the remains. I would suggest that there will only be remains in the upper layers,and that there would be no order in depth of those remains. Untested hypothesis ... but I don't have a pool
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
quote: No, it does not. Creationism's only support is the bible. So-called creation 'science' does not exist. It is merely creationism masking itself as a science in an attempt to gain some respectability outside fundamentalist circles. There is no such thing as creation 'science'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Fair point I feel (but then TC was responding to me so I wouldsay that). Tell me the SCIENCE upon which creationism is based. My contention was that it was fundamentally founded in theliteral interpretation of the bible. If the bible didn't exist, what evidence would point to creationat a single point in time. Without refuting conventional scientific claims, and with NO reference to the bible, argue in favour of Creation ... and then tell me that it is NOT founded in Biblical belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
No replies for a bit .... does that mean I win
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Well? Any takers ... just wanted to boost the topic back up
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Well?
Any takers ... just wanted to boost the topic back up --Hey thanx, I guess the thread got lost in the pile so I'm glad you gave it a nudge ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Perhaps because you can't see where this is going yet"
--Ohhhh, so were using battle tactics here, nice... "I will agree, that the fossil record shows a burrial sequence, andthat existence sequence is inferred by evolutionists (like myself)." --Creationists too. "As I understand it (please correct if wrong) your assertion is thatthe burrial sequence in the fossil record has nothing to do with the ACCOUNT of creation, only with the Great Flood." --Never heard of anything else that has any grasp on reality. "So again lets try to look at what one would expect to see fromthe your interpretation of the flood." --Lets! "Prior to the flood ALL animals existed in roughly their current form."--Emphesis on the 'rough'[ness]. "Apart from those animals taken aboard the Ark by Noah and hisfamily, all (presumably land) animals were killed in the deluge or resulting global flood (a time span of roughly a year ..." --Most would have been burried and died within the first couple months. "flood waters abating by the 10th Month, then Noah opens theArk 40 days later to dry earth)." --Something like that. "During the time of the flood dead animals would sink to the bottom(eventually), come to rest, and some would be buried." --Mabye half would have had to 'sink to the bottom and come to rest', while some would have been immidiatelly burried. "Some of these would be in conditions whereby fossilisationwould occur." --Anything that touched sea bottom...their gonna get fossilized unless protected by some force, ie a predator or something of the like. "Fossilisation is NOT a selective process. So long as the correctconditions are prevalent, remains will be fossilised. ANY animal could have become fossilised." --Yup. "Under these conditions we should expect to see NO SEQUENCE inthe burrial record, because the waters contained a number of ALL animals and their death and subsequent burrial would be related to the individual ability to survive in the water." --Note: God didn't keep all the animals out of the water and wait till it was flooded to throw everything back onto the earth to be burrial, thereby constituting randomness... "What we see (and there are NO anomalies to the best of my knowledge)"--Ofcourse there are no anomalies, Evolution will cooperate with anything found. "is a sequence of burrial which shows increasing complexity of formfrom the oldest burrials to the most recent." --Basically. "Fossilised remains are restricted in the orders of animals represented."--presented for burrial you mean. "There are NO fossilised lions, say."--Because there were no lions preceeding the flood. For instance, Tigers and lions are related, along with the possible mountain lion and panther. "Fossilised ammonites ALWAYSand ONLY occur in layers lower than dinosaurs despite ammonites being aquatic and able to survive a flood." --The flood wasn't all that gentle...And thats because they all died out before another phase of the flood. "Before debating the specific examples (and they are off the topof my head) think about what in the flood scenario could have caused the consistent sequencing that IS SEEN in the fossil record." --(thinx hard). "Explain exactly how this sequence could occur by way of a flood."--Ok, I'll quote myself from a bit ago: quote: --Note these arent all the factors, just the obvious ones to get discussion started. "Explain why the animals considered by evolutionists to have emergedmore recently are NEVER found in a fossilised state, when other animals which in biblical terms should have co-existed with them do." --Might I quote from yourself: quote: "Mechanism for burrial in a flood?"--Yes, see above quote (from myself). "Why should burrial during a flood be anything other thanrandom ?" --Because of the conditions in events during the flood. To put it so the most basic mind could understnd (I'm not implying at all as an insult, just a very basic fundemental understanding), if you throw a clam in the water, and then throw any kind of bird in the water...in any number your not going to have randomness. When you contribute characteristics, intelligence, agility and the like as I have given above, these wide non-random figures will be contributed on a smaller scale than a clam and a bird within other types. "That's an evasion. I noticed you like to point out these littledebating tactics so I thought I'd join in" --It is only true, unless you can point out the various characteristics as I have shown above, you cannot fit a trilobite into an equasion as an unknown factor. "The question is about the consistency of sequence in the fossilrecord." --ok. "This is exactly predicted by an evolutionary explanation for lifeon earth." --Who's to say thats the only explination. "It is exactly contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation, mixed up ina global flood and deposited at random on the flood bed." --Not the smartest thing to come to conclusions any-time this rapid, it signifies pre-conseived beliefs and ideas, which shouldn't be a factor in the scientific method. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"No replies for a bit .... does that mean I win
--Far from it. ------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024