Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 151 of 824 (718773)
02-08-2014 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
02-08-2014 5:53 PM


Re: FRAUD NOT SCIENCE
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 5:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 8:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 152 of 824 (718780)
02-08-2014 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by roxrkool
02-08-2014 7:54 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by roxrkool, posted 02-08-2014 7:54 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 9:28 PM Faith has replied
 Message 165 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2014 4:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 153 of 824 (718781)
02-08-2014 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by roxrkool
02-08-2014 7:54 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by roxrkool, posted 02-08-2014 7:54 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by roxrkool, posted 02-08-2014 10:23 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 154 of 824 (718783)
02-08-2014 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by New Cat's Eye
02-08-2014 7:58 PM


Re: FRAUD NOT SCIENCE
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-08-2014 7:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2014 9:24 PM Faith has replied
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2014 12:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 155 of 824 (718787)
02-08-2014 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
02-08-2014 8:40 PM


Re: SCIENCE NOT FRAUD
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 8:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 11:56 PM Coyote has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(2)
Message 156 of 824 (718788)
02-08-2014 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
02-08-2014 8:33 PM


more geology
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):
  1. zoroaster granite, an igneous layer, laid down by vulcanism; and vishnu schist, a metamorphic layer, resulting from volcanic minerals collected by submarine sedimentation and distorted by geologic forces.
  2. an angular unconformity, indicating that the layers below were solid rock prior to the deposition of the layers above.
  3. bass limestone, a separate sedimentary formation (as indicated by the unconformity) of mostly sandstone and limestone.
  4. hakatai shale, again sedimentary, but shale is primarily made after the largest particulates have settled. if this were the flood, we'd be nearing the end; shale is made in shallow water.
  5. shinumo quartzite, metamorphic rock, the lower layers of which are sandstones generally formed by mudflats. the upper levels are soft-structure deformations of similar rock.
  6. dox sandstone, starting again with a marine sedimentation, and trending towards coastal and mudflat deposition towards the top.
  7. cardens basalt, igneous (volcanic) rock.
  8. nankoweap formation, sedimentary again. weathering indicates most layers formed exposed to air, and not in a marine environment.
  9. chuar group (kwagunt and galeros formations), primarily sedimentary mudrock.
  10. sixty mile formation, sedimentary in standing waters (a lake).
  11. the great unconformity, again indicating that all the layers below were solid before the next layers were deposited.
  12. tapeats sandstone,
  13. bright angel shale, and
  14. muav limestone, comprising a third marine transgression series, where the rock layers were formed first by a submarine environment, then by a drying sea. if we were counting floods, this would be the third one.
  15. temple butte limestone, marine sediment. four floods.
  16. redwall limestone, again marine sediment.
  17. the suppai group (watchamigi, manakacha, wescogame formations, esplanade sandstone). a series of more marine transgressions: flooding, receding, drying. we're at like 8 floods, so far.
  18. hermit shale, sediment formed by running water, probably streams. mud and silt formations.
  19. coconino sandstone, dry sedimentation, formed by desert sand dunes.
  20. toroweap formation, gypsum shale and sandstone, formed by multiple shoreline transgressions as the coastline of the inland sea moved in an out of the area.
  21. kaibab limestone, again marine sedimentation.
as i hope you can see by this list, the geologic column and what we know about physical geology shows a history of water coming and going from this area many times, and not one massive flood/marine transgression event. we have multiple layers that show water invading the area, followed by layers that can only deposited by water receding, layers that can only be deposited by mud, layers that can only be deposited by dry methods or vulcanism... followed by more marine sedimentation. which one of these many marine transgression events was the flood of noah? they can't all be it; you can't form sandstone dry while it's under water. and those angular unconformities don't really jive with the idea that all the layers were formed roughly concurrently. the layers below have to be rock before the layers above; it demonstrates the law of superposition; that the layers on top have to be newer.
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 8:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 11:54 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 02-09-2014 11:33 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 157 of 824 (718791)
02-08-2014 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by roxrkool
02-08-2014 7:54 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by roxrkool, posted 02-08-2014 7:54 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 158 of 824 (718802)
02-08-2014 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by arachnophilia
02-08-2014 8:33 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 8:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 12:31 AM roxrkool has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 159 of 824 (718804)
02-08-2014 10:25 PM


A fun blog
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 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 160 of 824 (718819)
02-08-2014 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by arachnophilia
02-08-2014 9:28 PM


Re: more geology
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by arachnophilia, posted 02-08-2014 9:28 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2014 12:41 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2014 7:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 161 of 824 (718820)
02-08-2014 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Coyote
02-08-2014 9:24 PM


Calling the untestable and unprovable Fact IS Fraud, not Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2014 9:24 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Pollux, posted 02-09-2014 12:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 162 of 824 (718821)
02-09-2014 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
02-08-2014 11:56 PM


Re: Calling the untestable and unprovable Fact IS Fraud, not Science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 11:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 163 of 824 (718823)
02-09-2014 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by roxrkool
02-08-2014 10:23 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by roxrkool, posted 02-08-2014 10:23 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by roxrkool, posted 02-09-2014 11:05 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 164 of 824 (718824)
02-09-2014 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
02-08-2014 11:54 PM


Re: more geology
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 11:54 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by JonF, posted 02-09-2014 9:47 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 165 of 824 (718846)
02-09-2014 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
02-08-2014 8:33 PM


Re: One Simple Question for Faith
quote:
They should in any case, simply on the face of it, if only because the alternative scenarios are ridiculous,
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:
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.
Of course it isn't true that fossilisation requires protection from scavengers, so we don't need everything to be instantly buried.
quote:
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 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:
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.
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:
We know the land animals ended up at the top, for whatever reason.
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:
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.
Where "microevolution" means ultra-fast macroevolution, and I don't know of any reason to EXPECT that at all.
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 02-08-2014 8:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024