|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying Creation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Aaarrgghh! [insert head-banging smilie here]
quote: Au contraire, mon frere. There is literally NO mechanism that can account for fossil stratigraphy EXCEPT geologic time. Let me make this perfectly clear: NO FLOOD MODEL YOU'VE PRESENTED EXPLAINS THE EVIDENCE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD. (Sorry for shouting.) There are NO repeat NO anomalies as would be required by any global flood. Not to mention the utter lack of any geological evidence of rapid deposition. Not to mention the utter inability of a Flood - of any size - to explain things like fossilized mudcracks, raindrops, animal tracks, bioturbation, evaporite formations, etc etc etc.
quote: Why??? You've had the essence of the scientific method explained to you a dozen times. What is it about the formation and testing of hypotheses don't you understand? (Your science teachers down through the years should be taken out and shot.)
quote: In the first place, evolutionary theory is the absolute antithesis of biblical creationism (sorry, creation "science"). It rests on little things like EVIDENCE and OBSERVATION - two elements at least that creationism ain't got. In the second, I have no clue what the heck that second sentence is supposed to mean. Perhaps you'd care to clarify.
quote: Okee dokee, what (in your no doubt VAST experience referenced above) do you consider modifications to Darwin's theory? Please specify anything that might give one to believe there was something sneaky or underhanded going on. The only changes I can see were mechanistic, descriptive or based on new sciences (like genetics). These changes would include such refinements as an understanding of allopatric vs sympatric speciation, population genetics, genetic drift, PE, etc. None (let me repeat for clarity) NONE of these modifications IN ANY WAY FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED DARWINIAN THEORY (again apologies for shouting). There has been NO change in common descent, no change in natural selection (except mechanistic - and an ongoing argument about its relative importance), and the addition of random mutation and genetic drift. Darwin's orginal idea still stands after 150 years. Not bad, eh?
quote: On the contrary, that's exactly what you would expect from your Flood theory. In fact, you'd almost HAVE to find such an anomaly - and lots of them - for your theory to have any validity at all. Nice try. Now if you COULD find such a strangeness, especially if it were repeated in various places around the world, ToE could rightly be considered false.
quote: Validity or falsehood of any deposition theory DEPENDS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE FLOOD ITSELF. In other words, if the Flood didn't happen, then the discussion of deposition patterns is moot. In fact, the entire discussion of sorting mechanisms etc is rooted in an attempt to determine whether the Flood occurred. We're all still waiting your positive evidence. Any day - you've only been asked for the same thing about 50 times or so...
quote: No kidding. Therefore the evidence IN SUPPORT of its occurance should be immediately obvious everywhere in the world. Unless you can come up with some wonderous revelation that all the geologists, paleontologists, etc over the last 200 years have missed, there isn't any. Again, we're waiting eagerly for your information.
quote: THEN BLOODY WELL STOP HANDWAVING AND PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE!!!! [insert second head-banging smilie here] quote: Err, that last bit IS god of the gaps - there's a gap in the fossil record, therefore it didn't happen. I've given you an explanation for why this gap exists (remember: small forest dweller, acid forest soil, lousy chance of fossils?). Also, given the number of different species alive today that exhibit some of the adaptations one would expect from critters on the evolutionary pathway to bat-style flight (i.e., glider to flyer), there's absolutely no reason to believe it didn't happen the same way in the past.
quote: GoG.
quote: You mean you've never read anything about the miacid to cat evolution? Lots of fossils, lots of branches, lots of good evidence. 'Course it couldn't possibly have happened in 6000 years, so it must be wrong. quote: Bzzzzzzt. [sound of buzzer] I'm sorry, thanks for playing. Since your genesis story is your only evidence for the Flood, there's no mention (I checked) of nuclear winter or global cooling or an ice age. Even without the bible, there is no evidence that such an event occured 4500 years ago - of ANY stripe. Your theory collapses again for lack of evidence.
quote: Because that's the bleeding mechanism you're touting. If the infallable biblical scholars who invented the whole thing (err, sorry, the divinely inspired authors who were writing the literal and strict word of God), didn't include it - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Now, if you can show where the bible talks about endless winter or global freezing or an ice age, maybe we can reconsider the question.
quote: Once again, there is neither evidence from your God-given bible NOR from science that indicates a severe global cooling occuring 4500 years ago concurrently with the massive global warming that would have had to occur for your putative non-existent ice sheets to melt - causing the global flood you seem so fond of.
quote: Repeating: "How in the name of Darwin did you arrive at this little gem, TC?"
quote: I decided to bold this one. You're accepting evolutionary theory? 'Cause that's the ONLY conceivable explanation for the statement. I really can't wait to see how you wave this one off.
quote: Wait a sec. We now have two extinctions you admit to. Dates aside, which one coincides with your flood? Permian-Triassic: 90+% of all extant species obliterated. In fact, this one comes closest in sheer scale to your Flood: it nearly cancelled the whole experiment in life of this planet. Life persisted by a whisker, no more. Cretaceous-Tertiary: 60-70% of all extant species obliterated. Fill us in, TC: Which one corresponds to your Flood? And, of course, how do you explain the other one - let alone explain it in the last 4500 years (for which period, btw, we have verifiable archeological, including written, records?) [insert final head-banging smilie here]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3852 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][b]Not to mention the utter lack of any geological evidence of rapid deposition.[/QUOTE]
[/b] You mean large scale rapid deposition of course, we still have landslides, lahars, and Pompeii. My turn to be pedantical. [This message has been edited by gene90, 03-02-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: TC, "flowering plants" doesn't mean "flowers". Petal composition really doesn't matter to the discussion. The point is, NO flowering plants are EVER found in the lowest layers. The whole plant. Not just flowers. All trees except conifers are flowering plants.All grasses are flowering plants. Cacti are flowing plants. How do you explain the fact that we have yet to observe a single instance of a flowering tree, a flowering grass, etc., in the lower layers of the geologic column?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Duh-oh. [sheepish] Yeah - what you said. [edited to fix really strange quote mis-arrangement] [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-03-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
quote: awwww- isn't that precious? a creationist making things up so that the bible makes more sense.... that's just so sweet- no really it is. it's another example of how very flawed creationism is... ps- wasn't it god that made the flood? pss- didn't he abruptly stop the water from falling, and then create a rainbow in the cloud, tell us that he'd never flood the planet again? psss- that pesky ark just can't stay discovered. always turning up in different places...
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 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 1509 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 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Bit thin on responses now ... do I win yet ???
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Ya got my vote!
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Ya got my vote!"
--Oh please Quetzal ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3247 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
Hi John, I hate to tell you but your aproach to falsification is grossely in error. The biblical creation and Noachian flood myth can easily be disproved by just disproving ONE aspect of it's story line. Simple enough, there never has been a GLOBAL flood. Also, the geographical and temporal aspects of the fossil record support evolution and falsify creation.
Second, you really do have to aspects of science and proof all backwards. Your first staement is not how the Popperian approach works at all. Ex.1) A hypothesis is not proven by disproving a different hypothesis; therefore, creation is not proven by the fact that Lymarkian evolution has been disproven. Another example, creation was not proven when ONE aspect of embryology was disproven, ie ontogeny recapitulates {adult} phylogeny, a lot of people forget that it was adult phylogeny that was intended in the statement. 2) A hypothese (in the more inductive approach) is supported by supporting evidence and in the by not finding fatal flaws that disprove the entire edifice using the Popperian approach . Small flaws are generally used to correct errors in the overall framework. This is why evolution is a science and creationism is not, not because people do not want to hear creationism, but because fatal flaws have been found in creationism and not evolution and because supporting data has been found for evolution and not creationism. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Hi John, I hate to tell you but your aproach to falsification is grossely in error. The biblical creation and Noachian flood myth can easily be disproved by just disproving ONE aspect of it's story line. Simple enough, there never has been a GLOBAL flood. Also, the geographical and temporal aspects of the fossil record support evolution and falsify creation."
--I would most love to discuss the Flood with you, what are your objections, maybe I can help. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Perhaps you'd have a look see at messages 96 & 97 too
|
||||||||||||||||||||
trh373 Inactive Member |
I am curious why in this forum everyone seems to think that all of the animals were created at one single moment in time? The bible says animals were created on the 6th day, obviously day doesn't mean a 24 hour period. Rather due to the language it was written in, it just means a period of time. The animals were made at all sorts of times within this sixth day and therefore died at all sorts of times
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: First question: who seems to think this? Second question: what does it matter whether anyone thinks they were all created at the same moment or were created throughout the day? Neither idea can save the Genesis creation myth from its incompatibility with the known evidence in biology and geology. "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024