|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: So the burrials SHOULD be random ... not ordered.
quote: Glad we agree on that ... Evolution IS refutable given approriateevidence. It may NOT have to be THAT extreme, but not going into that in this thread (I think it's more for a 'What would convince you?' thread). quote: That's the nature of theories ... if new evidence emerges some or allof a theory has to be re-arranged. If the evidence is completely contrary to the theory the theoryWILL be discarded. Creationists do exactly the same. Come up with some evidence thatappears to refute a claim, and there's a bit more 'research', and a get out appears. quote: Yes, and there will be layers above and below where those remainsare completely absent. (It is the 'below' part that is the most important ... since scientists have been wrong about extinctions in the past). quote: So you agree that the fossil record shows an existence sequencefrom older forms to newer, and yet still hold the Biblical account of creation and of a great flood to be literally correct ? quote: Evolution does not REQUIRE it as evidence, without this there isplenty of other evidence for evolution (with which you tend to disagree/interpret different, but none the less ... ). For the flood model as you have stated it:: Any animal touching bottom will be fossilised.Animals on the Ark were those BEFORE speciation. Would require these proto-whatevers to support the model.
quote: So is the Bible literally correct or not, in this matter ? If the bible has omitted important information, then it is notcomplete, and so we cannot claim what is there to be anything other than an abridged/edited highlights version. That being the case how can we ascribe literal truth to what IS included ? quote: In general there are marked differences in vertebrate skeletalstructure between infants and adults. These alone can be used to identify infant remains. In the flood model, with anything touching sea bed being fossilisedwe should see many fossils of infants, since these would have been too weak to survive for more than a very short time. We do not see that many infant remains. Sorry ... the baby's crying I'll carry on with this reply later
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: And what about throwing in an elephant and a juvenileapatosaurus ? Why would one (elephants can swim, sauropods are thought to havebeen able to swim) hit bottom before the other ? And not JUST one, all apatosaurs hit the bottom before ANYelephants ... when survival is based (you agreed) on INDIVUDUAL survivability. OR in case we have a problem with supposing that a sauropod couldswim, why would ALL elasmosaurs (water dwellers as it is) die before ANY elephants (or mastodons or whatever YOU would expect to be the proto-elephant of Noah's time) ? BTW you said ::
quote: quote: Fair enough ... what characteristics and factors could contributeto the CONSISTENT sequence found in the fossil record. Evolutionary theory claims that remains found in lower levelswere deposited long before those in higher strata. That fits the data. If the lower remains lived and died before the births of those in higher layers (regardless of the actual time period) we would expect to see the progression which can be OBSERVED in the fossil record. quote: Interpratation of data ... true. Suppose you hadn't read anything about creationist claims abouthow the fossil record originated. What about the fossil record would lead you to suppose that allthe remains had co-existed, and that some cataclism had burried them in a sequence such that some forms appeared to precede others in time AND in form ? The hypothesis that the fossil record indicated an order of existencefrom long ago to more recent times was made based upon the data BEFORE evolutionary theory existed. It was later used as additional evidence to support evolutionary concepts put forward in the origin of species. quote: Again, that's fair enough. We do not have sufficient knowledgeof dinosaur metabolisms to know how often they required food. The point I was trying to make is that there is NO logical reasonwhy ALL of one kind of animal could have died and been burried before ANY of another kind, when all co-existed, and survivability is individual.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Sorry about the split in this reply ... babies!!
quote: Nothing in the above goes very far to explain the consistencywithin the fossil record ... see my previous posts!! quote: Are you referring to evolution being able to exaplain anything ? If you are, isn't that an indication that it might be right.The consistency with which evidence can be interpreted should be quite compelling. quote: Give me some sound, logical and/or physically credible explanationof the sequence in the fossil record other than that given by evolutionists and you might shake my foundations quote: Indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I'm not going to use a lot of quoting in this post, but I'll
summarise some of this discussion, and maybe ask a few questions to elaborate TC's position. I'll start by commenting that TC appears to get hooked on thesurface details of the examples/questions raised to the extent that the underlying message is overlooked. Example:: Peter:: How come ALL apatosaurs were burried before ANY elephants. TC:: apatosaurs were cold blooded, and elephants can't swim. Good thing to point out here is that dinosaurs were NOT reptiles,big or otherwise. They are dinosaurs. There is a fair amount of evidence that many (particular bi-ped predators) in the dinosaur kingdom were, in fact, warm-blooded. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/dinos000420.html http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/coldbloo.jsp http://www.sciam.com/exhibit/2000/042400dinoheart/ AND elephants can swim (Indian ones anyhow)::
http://home.gwi.net/~dnb/read/elephant/elephant.htmhttp://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/india/html/body_regions.html "Most amazing of all, however, are theswimming elephants. The beasts of burden were brought to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to haul timber. But to do their work, they must occasionally commute, island-hopping with their trainers, called mahouts, riding astride their backs. Remarkably, the great beasts can swim a mile or more at a stretch and move through the water faster than a swimming person. " Unless of course TC was referring to aparosaurs, which I alreadyadmitted was unsupported. The GUTS of this question remains .... Why are some remains ONLY found in layers above ANY exampleof other forms. I'm trying to remain in TC's own model here, to explore it. Itdoes not sound credible in the slightest that any flood, no matter how cataclismic, could sort remains into the consistent order we find. Not even ONE out of place. TC is gradually changing tack, too. So hypothesising and re-arrangingbased upon new evidence shouldn't be a problem for TC to understand Direct question to TC:: Are you a Young Earth Creationist ? I had the feeling you were from most of your posts. The biblical flood WAS a rapid filling of the earth with water. That's what it says in the bible. TC, do you accept Genesis as a literal, true account ? My questioning over infants was motivated by the suggestion thatthe sequence in the fossil record could be related to survivability. An infant would survive less time than an adult of the samespecies. All infant fossils should therefore be in the lower strata. This is not so, and there are relatively few infant fossil in any case. Not giving a reference, check the museums and fossilcatalogues ... I think you'll find majority adults and some juveniles. And what about those single celled fossilised impressions. Howcould a very light organism sink and leave a fossilised imprint before a burrowing animal like a rabbit or fox ? Why DO we find fossilised foot prints of dinosaurs ? Was ALL of the fossil record laid down by the flood ? The fossil record is contrary to the hypothesis that all animals(or some recent ancestor thereof) co-existed at ANY time, let alone 4500 years ago. Individual survivability does NOT explain a burrial sequencein which we find single celled animal imprints at the bottom of the grand canyon, moving upward we find some worms, and on upward until we find more and more complex forms. And was the grand canyon a direct result of the flood ??????
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
No responses for a bit ...
My contention that originated this debate was that thefossil record FALSIFIES the account of creation in Genesis. [The bit of it that I've been in I mean!!] There is little doubt that the fossil record (barring a globalflood that the fossil record was a sequence of existence (well in one post anyhow, in others he/she says 'No its a burrial sequence'. Bit of chop and change going on there). The ONLY way in which the fossil record can NOT refute thepredictions about burrial in the biblical creation account is if some force burried animals in a complexity sequence, and that the entire fossil record was laid down at one time. TC claims 'The flood did it.' The burrial sequence for TC is related to individual survivability,and the existence of non-speciated forms of modern animals. There is NO flood mechanism which could support the sequence in thefossil record. Even from simply common sense, let alone consideration of scenarios in which a global flood could occur. The sequence in the fossil record must, therefore, represent anexistence sequence (no time scale inferred), and the existence sequence alone refutes the biblical account of creation. [This message has been edited by Peter, 03-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Bit thin on responses now ... do I win yet ???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Perhaps you'd have a look see at messages 96 & 97 too
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024