Falsifying Creation

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Creationists infer an existence sequence ?"
--Of course, otherwize I would have no other choice but refer a retreat in shouting 'conspiracy conspiracy!'.

​

"Not quite sure what you mean here. Are you agreeing that the
burrials would be random ?"
--If my story of God holding the animals till one sudden moment
at the climax of the Flood, sure there would be emensly more randomness (though there still would be a consistancy to a degree).

---

So the burrials SHOULD be random ... not ordered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Not so. If a fossilised hominid were found in the jaws of an
Allosaurus evolution could NOT cope with that ... and I doubt
any modification of the theory could."
--Now if this hominid found in the jaws of an Allosaurus were found, there would possibly be some burrial excuses, but then again, something this extream would not hold up well at all of course.

---

Glad we agree on that ... Evolution IS refutable given approriate
evidence. 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:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

There are modifications taking place in evolution theory alot of the time. When different organisms are found in different layers and such. Your not going to find something like your hominid approach or a wallrus in cambrian strata, those are large extremeties. What you will find is possibly few ammounts of one type of animal in lower strata, which Evolution is well adapt to cooperate I have found. Keep in mind that the Geo column isn't a hill's worth of strata. There are thousands of layers, that are marked with eras, periods, etc. by the order of the find of variations in phylogeny and anatomy of organisms.

---

That's the nature of theories ... if new evidence emerges some or all
of a theory has to be re-arranged.If the evidence is completely contrary to the theory the theory
WILL be discarded.Creationists do exactly the same. Come up with some evidence that
appears to refute a claim, and there's a bit more 'research', and
a get out appears.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"By 'no anomalies' I meant that where fossils are found, the same
(broadly speaking) types of fossil are found in the equivalent
layers ... all around the world."
--Thats right, though refer to the above. The Geologic column by distribution of fossils is not blocky, that is things just don't all of a soden appearing in massive quantities in the same marked strata. Its a smooth spectrum, where your going to find one animal, the further you go down, the less densly they will be found.

---

Yes, and there will be layers above and below where those remains
are completely absent. (It is the 'below' part that is the
most important ... since scientists have been wrong about
extinctions in the past).

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"No, not presented for burrial. In the flood model ALL animals
(barring the Arkers) were presented for burrial within a one year
period starting with the deluge."
--Hm.. I guess it was just a miss-wording and understanding, I concur.

​

"I was getting more at the idea that only certain, 'older'
forms are represented in the fossil record. That's older
in a evolutionary interpretation, of course."
--And Flood interperetation might I add.

---

So you agree that the fossil record shows an existence sequence
from older forms to newer, and yet still hold the Biblical
account of creation and of a great flood to be literally
correct ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Is there then a single, fossilised proto-lion which you know of ?"
--Frankely, I can't find much at all on lion evolution, let alone the cats. Can you find anything?

​

"The flood model would require it as evidence."
--So would evolution , unless ofcourse they would accept Jumps from dogs to cats in a generation. Lions do exist, and according to evolution theory, everything has come from one common ancestor, thus the lion.

---

Evolution does not REQUIRE it as evidence, without this there is
plenty 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:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Another phase ... where's that come from ?"
--Phases in the Flood, such as the point of the ice age, killing off dinosaurs, a phase in which sediment settled and were transported by oceanic currents during the flood at different places on the earth. In all simplicity these factors produce a phase-like progression.

---

So is the Bible literally correct or not, in this matter ?If the bible has omitted important information, then it is not
complete, 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:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"So you agree with my comment that burrial sequence would be
related to individual ability to survive the conditions."
--You could say that.

​

"None of the animals would be able to completely survive the flood,
but some individuals could last longer than others."
--Thats right, thats why we don't see every animal look as if they all keeled over and died like the dinosaurs, we se progression, which is none-the-less evidence for the Flood, likewize Evolution by this factor alone.

​

"That's NOT species, that's individual animals. Some proto-lions
would be stronger than others and so survive longer, and be buried
later."
--No doubt.

---

In general there are marked differences in vertebrate skeletal
structure between infants and adults. These alone can be
used to identify infant remains.In the flood model, with anything touching sea bed being fossilised
we 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

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Yes ... if you place them in the water in a particular sequence,
then there is a sequence."
--You don't have to put them in sequencially, you could throw a clam in the water, and throw the bird in the water at the same time, your going to get the clam on the bottom, and with massive quantities, many other factors would be brought in, that is, seeing that clams would be overlapping with birds after a while, for instance.

​

"You already said that's not what happened
though."
--I don't believe I did, what did I say?

---

And what about throwing in an elephant and a juvenile
apatosaurus ?Why would one (elephants can swim, sauropods are thought to have
been able to swim) hit bottom before the other ?And not JUST one, all apatosaurs hit the bottom before ANY
elephants ... when survival is based (you agreed) on INDIVUDUAL
survivability.OR in case we have a problem with supposing that a sauropod could
swim, 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:

---

--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...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"If, on the other hand, you have an environment with a variety of
life, covering the major ecological niches required, and then deluge
it rapidly how does the OBSERVED sequence occur ?"
--I don't fully understand what you mean by 'how does the OBSERVED sequence occur', but I believe the answer would be to attribute and consider characteristics and any factor that would contribute to its order of deposition.

---

Fair enough ... what characteristics and factors could contribute
to the CONSISTENT sequence found in the fossil record.Evolutionary theory claims that remains found in lower levels
were 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:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"It's a difficult one to explain, because you are putting up the
kind of suppositions and scenario reasoning that you discount
when put forward as evolutionary explanations."
--Not really, many attributions of Flood explination not only is evidence of the Flood, but as you see throughout these debates very frequently, your going to consider 'interepretation'.

---

Interpratation of data ... true.Suppose you hadn't read anything about creationist claims about
how the fossil record originated.What about the fossil record would lead you to suppose that all
the 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 existence
from 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:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"In the flood scenario, strong intelligent animals would survive
longer than weaker, less intelligent animals."
--Right.

​

"Many dinosaurs are thought to have been able to swim ... duck-billed
varieties spring to mind, and even T.Rex might have
been able to, and these animals are big and strong. Sure they
would starve to death eventually, but if they had metabolisms similar
to modern day crocodiles that could take over a year (big if
but there are prescedents for SOME animals to be able to survive
without ANY food for extended periods)."
--I don't think they have the same anatomical structure and functions as crocodiles and alligators, being dinosaurs in contrast. My explination of Dinosaur 'extinction', is placing it at the rise of the ice age, thereby annialating dinosaurs over a period of time. This also would include other's that arent exactly 'dinosaurs' such as pterosaurs.

---

Again, that's fair enough. We do not have sufficient knowledge
of dinosaur metabolisms to know how often they required food.The point I was trying to make is that there is NO logical reason
why 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.

Sorry about the split in this reply ... babies!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"The sequence of burrial evident in the fossil record shows increasing
complexity of form. In some layers there are a mixture of animals
which fit ecological niche concepts, some small, some large."
--Right.

​

"This does not fit with what can be expected from a flood scenario."
--See above.

---

Nothing in the above goes very far to explain the consistency
within the fossil record ... see my previous posts!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"I'm not saying it's the only explanation that fits, I'm saying
that evolution fits the fossil record data."
--See above on my response on this specific.

---

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:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"This IS NOT a conclusion."
--Whew, I'm glad to hear that.

​

"I am exploring the flood scenario with you at the moment, in an
attempt to see how the Great Flood could have lead to the burrial
sequence evident in the fossil record."
--See above.

​

"So far I cannot find a convincing explanation for that sequence
which is explainable by the flood scenario."
--I wouldn't expect you to think otherwize, otherwize, you most likely wouldn't be an Evolutionist now would you?

---

Give me some sound, logical and/or physically credible explanation
of the sequence in the fossil record other than that given
by evolutionists and you might shake my foundations

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Hopefully I have made clear my objections to the sequencing suggestions you have made."
--Discussion continues, and yes we are making nice progress, I am enjoying exchangment of examples, objections, and ideas.

---

Indeed.

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 the
surface 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.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/india/html/body_regions.html"Most amazing of all, however, are the
swimming 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 already
admitted was unsupported.The GUTS of this question remains ....Why are some remains ONLY found in layers above ANY example
of other forms.I'm trying to remain in TC's own model here, to explore it. It
does 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-arranging
based upon new evidence shouldn't be a problem for TC to understandDirect 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 that
the sequence in the fossil record could be related to survivability.An infant would survive less time than an adult of the same
species. 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 fossil
catalogues ... I think you'll find majority adults and some
juveniles.And what about those single celled fossilised impressions. How
could 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 sequence
in 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 ??????

No responses for a bit ...My contention that originated this debate was that the
fossil 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 global
flood ) would refute the creation account. Even TC agreed
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 the
predictions 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 the
fossil 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 an
existence 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]

Bit thin on responses now ... do I win yet ???

Perhaps you'd have a look see at messages 96 & 97 too