Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 166 of 1163 (786847)
06-28-2016 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by jar
06-28-2016 10:03 AM


Re: The creationist "hypothetical geologic column"
Are there really people that can read such nonsense with laughing at the utter ridiculousness of such an assertion?
Twice now, I've tried to read the whole article and failed because I was so distracted by the errors in virtually every sentence.
I thought maybe we could wait to see exactly what Mick wants to discuss.
There's just too much goofiness in the article.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by jar, posted 06-28-2016 10:03 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2016 2:48 PM edge has replied

  
14174dm
Member (Idle past 1108 days)
Posts: 161
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


(3)
Message 167 of 1163 (786854)
06-28-2016 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by mike the wiz
06-27-2016 5:01 PM


Apparently Woodmorappe is clueless as to the point of a geologic column. Notice I don't refer to "THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN" Each point on the earth has its own geologic history and therefore is its own geologic column.
Why would there be a complete collection of all the eras at any one point? Geology on the earth is an ongoing process of erosion and deposition. Why would there be any point on the earth that was continuously deposited on without significant erosion? That a few points with every era exist is more a matter of winning a lottery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by mike the wiz, posted 06-27-2016 5:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by edge, posted 06-28-2016 3:29 PM 14174dm has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 168 of 1163 (786859)
06-28-2016 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by edge
06-28-2016 10:54 AM


Re: The creationist "hypothetical geologic column"
I thought maybe we could wait to see exactly what Mick wants to discuss.
He rarely wants to discuss anything. He's the forum equivalent of the kid who dumps a flaming bag of poop on your doorstep, rings the bell, and runs away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by edge, posted 06-28-2016 10:54 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by edge, posted 06-28-2016 3:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 169 of 1163 (786865)
06-28-2016 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by 14174dm
06-28-2016 12:35 PM


Apparently Woodmorappe is clueless as to the point of a geologic column. Notice I don't refer to "THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN" Each point on the earth has its own geologic history and therefore is its own geologic column.
Why would there be a complete collection of all the eras at any one point? Geology on the earth is an ongoing process of erosion and deposition. Why would there be any point on the earth that was continuously deposited on without significant erosion? That a few points with every era exist is more a matter of winning a lottery.
This point is completely irrelevant to the validity old ages and faunal succession. I'm not sure how it got started other than by some YEC saying that there is no complete geologic column except in textbooks, or something to that effect.
The correct response would have been to say 'so what?' Unfortunately, Glenn Morton decided to take them on with facts. Now it's been blown way out of proportion with idiotic responses like Woody's, where he virtually denies erosion and non-deposition (well, he had to make a vague exception with angular unconformities).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by 14174dm, posted 06-28-2016 12:35 PM 14174dm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Pressie, posted 06-29-2016 1:35 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 170 of 1163 (786866)
06-28-2016 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2016 2:48 PM


Re: The creationist "hypothetical geologic column"
He rarely wants to discuss anything.
That seems to be the case with most YECs willing to post. In a way, I really don't blame them for asymmetric warfare. It's all they've got.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2016 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 171 of 1163 (786894)
06-29-2016 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by mike the wiz
06-27-2016 4:18 PM


mike the wiz writes:
Your argument is that if a flood happened today, you should be found in the same strata as your friend who lives 2,000 miles away from you.
Actually, in a very high energy environment with one big, violent flood, covering the whole world, such as proposed by those floodists (you know, continents speeding around the globe at the speed of light, oceans full of water coming up from below the surface and meters of rain falling from above every second and covering the whole world in water), of course the remains of me and my friend will be found in the same strata.
In a scenario such as that, I would expect my ripped and shredded remains, together with ripped and shredded remains of my friend who lived 2 000 miles away, together with ripped and shredded remains of vegetation and various other life forms to be deposited in the same mega-conglomerate. This conglomerate would cover the place where I lived and also the place 2 000 miles away where my friend lived.
Edited by Pressie, : Added sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by mike the wiz, posted 06-27-2016 4:18 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 172 of 1163 (786896)
06-29-2016 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by edge
06-28-2016 3:29 PM


It seems as if mike the wiz thinks that the Cambrian is a 'rock layer', the Ordovician is a 'rock layer', the Silurian is a 'rock layer', etc.
I guess mike can't personally be blamed for it as he gets his geological 'knowledge' from Jan Peczkis. Now, that guy can be blamed for telling untruths about the natural science we call Geology while he knows his herd will follow him blindly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by edge, posted 06-28-2016 3:29 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 12:28 PM Pressie has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 173 of 1163 (786917)
06-29-2016 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Tangle
06-27-2016 6:14 PM


Tingle writes:
Hi Mick, why don't you put down your book of logical fallacies and argue some facts?
As you note, there are people here who are not dim, we've also read the book and have progressed from psedo-philosophical argument to real knowledge. Why not follow?
Where's your beef?
The name is Mike.
Nice baseless assertion there, seems all you can do is attack, "mike the wiz", eh? Oh sure, you're not dim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Tangle, posted 06-27-2016 6:14 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Tangle, posted 06-29-2016 12:38 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 174 of 1163 (786919)
06-29-2016 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Pressie
06-29-2016 1:35 AM


It seems as if mike the wiz thinks that the Cambrian is a 'rock layer', the Ordovician is a 'rock layer', the Silurian is a 'rock layer', etc.
Well, technically speaking what do you define them as? Do you define them as, "eras", because if you do, you should know that they don't come with evolutionary tags on them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Pressie, posted 06-29-2016 1:35 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2016 12:37 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 192 by Pressie, posted 06-30-2016 1:07 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 193 by Pressie, posted 06-30-2016 6:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 175 of 1163 (786921)
06-29-2016 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 12:28 PM


Well, technically speaking what do you define them as? Do you define them as, "eras" ...
They're periods. Sheesh.
... because if you do, you should know that they don't come with evolutionary tags on them.
No, they come with fossils and various radioactive isotopes in them.
This is why this thread is called "The Great Creationist Fossil Failure" and not "The Great Creationist Evolutionary Tags Failure".
Now, would you like to try to explain the fossil record in terms of creationist fantasies, or are you having too much fun proving my point for me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 12:28 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 1:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 176 of 1163 (786923)
06-29-2016 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 12:26 PM


Mike writes:
Nice baseless assertion there, seems all you can do is attack, "mike the wiz", eh? Oh sure, you're not dim.
Just pointing out that endless fallacy geekery is getting you nowhere - we all know them. We're interested in facts and evidence - if you started to produce some, you might make some progress.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 12:26 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 1:11 PM Tangle has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 177 of 1163 (786927)
06-29-2016 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by edge
06-27-2016 7:35 PM


Edge writes:
Actually, I find it to be quite apt. No YEC has ever explained the fossil record and even Faith admits this. What Dr. A has done is laid out the main YEXplanations and summarily destroyed them, just as has been done in the past, but in a single post.
Why? because you say so? Ever heard of a bare-assertion before? I am guessing not. "Hey, our guy has just beaten you all to a pulp! What, my evidence? Didn't you hear me, our guy has just beaten you all to a pulp."
Lol! That's me refuted then.
Shouting "we win" might prove a great deal to you. And my dad is bigger than your dad, Edge.
Edge writes:
Sure, then you just have to show us how all of the geological processes that we see in the record were able to happen in one year.
It's that easy.
Show us how mountain ranges rose up and eroded away in a year.
Show us how dinosaurs were able to procreate and make nests in one year while under water.
This is called elephant-hurling. I could elephant-hurl a list of of the things that uniformatarianism can't explain at you too, what would it prove? Did you think I was going to address the list of things you say show an old age? Poor dear thinks I'm stupid enough to be baited when he hasn't addressed anything I said.... Awww, that's so cute.
I need a translation of this paragraph. It appears to be as jumbled as your understanding of geological history.
When you don't deal with someone's arguments and just go for attacking their credibility rather than rebutting what they specifically say, this is called argumentum ad hominem. Didn't you know that? It is one of the fallacies of diversion, because it distracts people into thinking that if they can just detract from the arguer, then the argument doesn't have to be dealt with.
You might as well have just said, "oh Mike, you big dick head for being a creationist".
Erm.....okay then. Nice talking to you too.
And if you need me to explain why the reproduction of jellyfish only requires jellyfish then we are in for a very long night. I suggest I bring my hand-puppets next time I visit the forum. In case you still don't get it here is an analogy; Imagine I sat down to dinner and I needed a knife, a fork and a plate to eat my food, imagine if you then said to me, "here is a spoon too,". I would look at you with an incredulous face would I not? So then, "evolutionary stasis" as an oxymoron, is amusing to me, giving these facts.
So my "understanding" wasn't, "jumbled" to begin with. The term, "jumbled" was a question-begging-epithet. Don't you find it rather embarassing to tell someone who understands what they are saying completely, they don't understand when you yourself have just said, "I need a translation of this paragraph".
Yes - YOU need a translation, because you are not smart enough to understand deductive reasoning, whereas I am. If there is a theory of created kinds as the antecedent then as confirmation, our consequent would be, "then there would follow similar type creatures, basically unchanged", whereas for evolution an apriori prediction is that we would expect to see the transitionals.
Using the modus tollens (method of destruction) we can then falsify the claim if there is a conspicuous absence of evidence, which is regarded as falsification-evidence according to Popper.
So next time YOU don't understand, don't pretend that is because of my stupidity. If YOU don't understand then YOU are the one that doesn't have a basic grasp of deductive reasoning. For if identical animal kinds don't count as evidence kinds have remained unchanged, then please show me how to qualify evidence for baramins. There is only one other option according to the law of the excluded middle, and that is that the fossils would, "not" look the same.
In other words you would have to argue that if we predicted what we would find in the fossils APRIORI to our knowledge of the fossils, we would expect evidence of baramins to look different, and not look the same.
AHAHAHAHAHA! What a brilliant example of reductio-ad-absurdum! If only you had the intelligence to understand why. Alas, you never will. A simpler explanation would need hand-puppets, and why should I hang around here to have tomatoes and eggs thrown at me, when I have so cleverly avoided your political scoring-system.

"Khan, I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect." - Captain Kirk

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by edge, posted 06-27-2016 7:35 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by caffeine, posted 06-29-2016 1:15 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 185 by edge, posted 06-29-2016 2:50 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 178 of 1163 (786929)
06-29-2016 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2016 12:37 PM


DrA writes:
No, they come with fossils and various radioactive isotopes in them.
This is why this thread is called "The Great Creationist Fossil Failure" and not "The Great Creationist Evolutionary Tags Failure".
Now, would you like to try to explain the fossil record in terms of creationist fantasies, or are you having too much fun proving my point for me?
No, ROCKS come with fossils and isotopes in them Dr A. Goodness me, don't tell me you think a neurosis exists in the rocks? Your neurotic agreement that the rocks are ages, exists between your ears, Sir. What exists as reality, is the facts themselves, which are the rocks.
Or are you saying rocks don't exist and eras do?
DrA writes:
Now, would you like to try to explain the fossil record in terms of creationist fantasies, or are you having too much fun proving my point for me?
Oh that's it for me, you've really baited me with those epithets Dr A, I won't sleep tonight worrying if we evolved.
Lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2016 12:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by edge, posted 06-29-2016 2:56 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2016 5:40 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 179 of 1163 (786930)
06-29-2016 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Tangle
06-29-2016 12:38 PM


Just pointing out that endless fallacy geekery is getting you nowhere - we all know them. We're interested in facts and evidence - if you started to produce some, you might make some progress.
So if you knew the fallacies you would commit them? (argumentum ad hominem for example)
That's an example of reductio-ad-absurdum, I can refute the statement by use of the modus tollens because the consequent would be ABSURD.
If you knew all of the fallacies you make, you would not make them by attacking my credibility, be attempting to argue I don't understand and am muddled. I am not muddled at all, but if you love FALSEHOOD and LIES then that's your problem, why should I make it mine?
You say, "bring on the argument" in so many words, but essentially I have done what I came to do, I revealed DrA's rubbish for what it is. Now all you guys can do is hang around throwing eggs and tomatoes and declaring my defeat.
I would never have expected that.
As for the facts, we all have the same facts but it's how we interpet them. It's also the missing facts that count, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Tangle, posted 06-29-2016 12:38 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2016 1:35 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 187 by edge, posted 06-29-2016 3:03 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 180 of 1163 (786931)
06-29-2016 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by mike the wiz
06-29-2016 12:57 PM


So next time YOU don't understand, don't pretend that is because of my stupidity. If YOU don't understand then YOU are the one that doesn't have a basic grasp of deductive reasoning. For if identical animal kinds don't count as evidence kinds have remained unchanged, then please show me how to qualify evidence for baramins. There is only one other option according to the law of the excluded middle, and that is that the fossils would, "not" look the same.
But that is the whole point of this thread, that rocks of different ages contain different assemblages of fossils. Lobsters are never found in rocks older than the Cretaceous; trilobites are never found in rocks younger than the Permian. A fact wholly unexplained from the creationist point of view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 12:57 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by mike the wiz, posted 06-29-2016 1:30 PM caffeine 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