|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
As I said, some things can be known, if that is known for sure, fine, no contest. It happened in the unwitnessed prehistoric past, and not even on this planet...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh yes! All those "billions" of fossils in the rocks today would make for an excellent argument in favor of a global flood 4300 years ago... They should in any case, simply on the face of it, if only because the alternative scenarios are ridiculous, plus the fact that billions of dead things got buried which protected them from predators (which were dying en masse too) and even managed to get fossilized, which does require special conditions the Flood would have produced in abundance, which otherwise can only occur rarely. You can of course come up with all your objections, but the general fact remains that he observable situation DOES support the Flood extremely well.
if those fossils actually represented organisms alive 4300 years ago. But of course they do.
A very simple observation that can be made by anyone on the planet and requires zero interpretation is that there are no modern horses, camels, oxen, kangaroos, bears, cats, dogs, cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, humans, trees, grass, wheat, corn, tools, houses, carts, settlements, or ANYTHING from an iron age world present in the rocks. There are fossils that resemble today's animal and plant life, but these examples occur at the top of the rock record. In fact, they occur withing tens of feet of the surface of the earth, when, if there truly was a global flood, they would occur at the bottom. Settlements don't run up hill. You can't know where they SHOULD have occurred. This is one of those things that can't be proved, exactly the sort of speculation, imagination. hypothesis that cannot be tested, so you are left with it in that form as merely an hypothesis. We know the land animals ended up at the top, for whatever reason. As for the creatures differing from their living counterparts that simply implies changes by microevolution since the Flood, which is exactly what should be expected.
On top of that, the deeper you go into the fossil record (i.e., move stratigraphically lower), the more bizarre the life forms. With the exception of a few organisms, they only resemble today's life forms in the most superficial ways. Why the stranger ones are deeper is a puzzle, I agree, but again there's no way to KNOW why that is so, it just is. And again they are bizarre because they are so different from life forms today, but again their living counterparts would simply have microevolved from any of those types that happened to have been preserved either on the ark or otherwise. The animals on the ark most likely didn't look a whole lot like those we are familiar with today.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
roxrkool writes: there are no modern horses, camels, oxen, kangaroos, bears, cats, dogs, cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, humans, trees, grass, wheat, corn, tools, houses, carts, settlements, or ANYTHING from an iron age world present in the rocks. that's not quite true. certainly, there is no evidence of modern humans or civilization, but there are plenty of essentially modern plants and animals that go all the way back to the cretaceous. your overall point is correct though, of course; the fossil record presents an evolutionary organization. extra points for using "iron age" to describe the bible, but i have to take them away because hypothetical noah would have lived in the bronze age.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I keep trying to say that some things CAN be known, they are just obvious as is. Mike the Wiz was saying they are actually in the present anyway and what you want explained about them doesn't require any leap into theorizing about events in that prehistoric past, which is what WOULD be untestable. What you cannot KNOW about the fossils for instance is when and how they died, all you can do is hypothesize, but you CAN know that a particular fossil represents a life form that is no longer living on this planet. So IF there is no doubt that the rock formation on Mars was caused by water, no competing ideas about that, fine, but if you come up with a theory about how and when it occurred, that is going to be untestable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
What you cannot KNOW about the fossils for instance is when and how they died, all you can do is hypothesize You don't need to know how they died, but when they lived can be determined. And yes, you need to hypothesize. But then you can run a variety of tests, including radiometric dating, stratigraphic dating, and all the rest and you can test those hypotheses. If the predictions derived from those hypotheses are consistently confirmed, than you might be able to elevate that hypothesis to a theory. You seem to think that "hypothesis" means a wild ass guess that scientists make that is surely wrong. But you have no evidence to support that. And in fact, the evidence is all against you. You have absolutely no qualifications to even think the word science, let alone tell us how it works and what it shows. You'd be more honest if you just prefaced each post with "I believe..." and let it go at that. Pretending that science agrees with you is just plain dishonest.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
Faith writes: They should in any case, simply on the face of it, if only because the alternative scenarios are ridiculous, multiple apparent layers being formed by multiple lithification events is ridiculous?
plus the fact that billions of dead things got buried which protected them from predators (which were dying en masse too) and even managed to get fossilized, which does require special conditions the Flood would have produced in abundance, which otherwise can only occur rarely. why isn't the geologic column a giant flood plain, then? i agree that a world wide flood would provide a special fossilization condition en masse, but the problem is that it would be at best three such conditions, depending on how long we're supposing the water stuck around for, and form a typical marine transgression event. what about the other layers, which are not flood related?
You can of course come up with all your objections, but the general fact remains that he observable situation DOES support the Flood extremely well. not even remotely at all. let's look at a popular rock formation.
this is the grand canyon. i'm going to go from bottom to top (oldest to newest):
i'll leave the animals for another post. let's talk about the rock layers and how they got there first. Edited by arachnophilia, : i accidentally a word.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
On top of that, the deeper you go into the fossil record (i.e., move stratigraphically lower), the more bizarre the life forms. With the exception of a few organisms, they only resemble today's life forms in the most superficial ways. Critical for this is that none of the fossil strata data contradicts evolution -- and that this is an observation, not a conclusion, not an hypothesis. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1009 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
"Essentially" modern is not what I was going for. I expect exact replicas of life from 4300 years ago in the rock record. But I am interested in knowing which *modern* life forms from 4300 years ago exist in the rock record.
You are correct. I used the age of the Bible as the age of the Flood. The flood is alleged to have occurred in the Bronze Age.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Here's a fun blog, by The Sensuous Curmudgeon
ICR Reacts to the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate ICR Reacts to the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate | The Sensuous Curmudgeon I think he hits the nail on the head!Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Go read the thread Why the Flood Never Happened. We've done the Grand Canyon to death on that thread and I'm not going to repeat it here just for you just because you missed it.
Your guess about what a worldwide Flood would have done is just as useless as all the others here. If the Flood created ANY of the strata it should have created ALL of the strata.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And yes, you need to hypothesize. But then you can run a variety of tests, including radiometric dating, stratigraphic dating, and all the rest and you can test those hypotheses. Your methods are just as untestable and unprovable and unreliable as what they are supposedly testing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Hi Faith,
You have many times said you reject RM dating, but have yet to adduce a single reason why, apart from it disagreeing with the Bible.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
roxrkool writes: "Essentially" modern is not what I was going for. I expect exact replicas of life from 4300 years ago in the rock record. But I am interested in knowing which *modern* life forms from 4300 years ago exist in the rock record. well, the issue is that species identified by fossils and living species tend to be identified by different characters, so you never really get an exact match. from an evolutionary perspective, we wouldn't expect an exact match. surely some genetic drift happens over time. and you'll never get exact replicas unless you're dealing with asexual reproduction. so, for instance, here's a xiphosuran from the solnhofen limestone, and one that was alive pretty recently. they're different genera, but only because i'm too lazy to find a fossil one from the same genus as the living one. they're not exact replicas, but you'd be hard-pressed to find the difference. the fossil one's from the jurassic, but you can find "essentially" identical xiphosurans all the way down to the triassic. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
Faith writes: Go read the thread Why the Flood Never Happened. We've done the Grand Canyon to death on that thread and I'm not going to repeat it here just for you just because you missed it. what a thoroughly underwhelming answer. you seriously can't expect to hand-wave away counter evidence to your claims like that. just because you talked a lot in some other thread doesn't mean that you can plant your flag and declare victory in this one. and you can't expect someone to not bring up obvious counter evidence just because you're tired of explaining yourself.
Your guess about what a worldwide Flood would have done is just as useless as all the others here. again, this is not a guess. we know what flood plains and marine incursions look like. they look like the kinds of rocks deposited by water on top of the kinds of rock that are not deposited by water. i realize you think we've done the grand canyon to death. would you rather i picked some other area where the geologic column is obvious and easily studied? because the fact that there are multiple layers of rock that are all deposited by different methods, and show evidence of about a dozen separate marine incursions in north america, is not unique to the grand canyon.
If the Flood created ANY of the strata it should have created ALL of the strata. fantastic. now please explain the mechanism associated with the flood that caused a marine incursion series (flooding, receding, drying formations of rock) followed by dry deposition or volcanic deposition, followed by another marine incursion series. because that would be two floods. now explain why that happens more than 8 times in the geologic column in north america. because dry deposition layers between wet ones isn't really good evidence for all of them coming from a flood.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: On the face of it, the idea that fossils accumulate slowly over time, with localised disasters playing an important role, is less ridiculous than the idea of a world-wide flood. After all we know that localised disasters happen. Mike the Wiz may have got a lot of things wrong, but on that he was close enough to right.
quote: Of course it isn't true that fossilisation requires protection from scavengers, so we don't need everything to be instantly buried.
quote: If that were true you would have no need to make unwarranted assumptions, false assertions and hand wave away features of the fossil record that contradict your ideas.
quote: Our understanding of nature - which you accept as valid knowledge - gives us an excellent basis for trying to understand what the Flood would produce.
quote: That's hardly an accurate representation of the facts. We don't find land animals in the earliest strata, but they aren't restricted to the most recent (or anything like it!) and marine fossils continue up through the strata, with, to the best of my knowledge, no end.
quote: Where "microevolution" means ultra-fast macroevolution, and I don't know of any reason to EXPECT that at all.
quote: It's not just a question of why the stranger ones are deeper, it's also about why so many of the familiar ones are absent. And I think that it,s quite telling that you have to appeal to evolution to explain that. Of course, if we take the more reasonable point of view that the fossils accumulated over a long period of time, and that they represent samples of the life forms living at particular times, the problem goes away. Which is why geologists got that far before Darwin entered the fray.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024