|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Faith writes: I would like to be able to see how the claim of the fossil order holds up across all the evidence, not particularly for the sake of my own arguments, however. I'm glad to know the information is out there, but I don't think I'll be able to sort through it to answer my questions. Don't you think those that spend their lives working with fossils would notice if there were fossils out of order in the record? It would be the find of a lifetime, it would be evidence against one of the most established scientific theories in existence. It's Nobel prize stuff. The fact that it's never happened while millions of fossils have been found is the evidence supporting it. You bet your life you'd never be able to 'sort through it.'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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I wouldn't expect to find anything obviously out of order, but perhaps some gray areas where interpretation makes something fit into the order that's questionable, or perhaps just seeing it all laid out I'd find the whole concept of the order to be iffy. It's all a subjective thing anyway, you know.
To be noticed by anyone other than a creationist a fossil or group of fossils would have to be quite dramatically out of the established order, and the tendency would always be to fit in an ambiguity rather than consider it as out. Just how likely do you think it is that anyone committed to the established way of looking at these things would want to find something that might overthrow the whole idea of evolution anyway? This idea that they'd be eager to find such a thing doesn't really fly. In the hard sciences, yes, there would definitely be rewards for overthrowing an established theory, but not in an interpretive science like evolutionism and Old Earthism. abe: And that's because most anomalies and contradictions can be rationalized away. Even the supposed falsification of finding a rabbit in Precambrian rock would just be rationalized away, not allowed to be the falsification everyone claims it would be. Over and over in the debate here it's just one interpretation against another, because that's what this science is made of, interpretation. There is rarely the definiteness of the sort of find you get in the hard sciences. You can't fudge the shape of the DNA molecule for instance, you can't fudge its chemical components, but you CAN fudge the meaning of mutations because of their variety of effects and lack of consistency. You CAN get away with supposing a whole era of time from the fossil contents of a slab of rock because there is really no way to prove it one way or the other. I can knock myself out trying to show the absurdity of the interpretation, which I think is eyepoppingly obvious, but I have no way of proving it: you either see it or you don't, and committed evos have no motivation to see it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Even the supposed falsification of finding a rabbit in Precambrian rock would just be rationalized away, not allowed to be the falsification everyone claims it would be. That's an interesting daydream. Still, even if it was true and not the insane fantasy of a bewildered mind, just think how pleased your fellow-creationists would be if you managed to find one. Good luck. Go for it.
Over and over in the debate here it's just one interpretation against another, because that's what this science is made of, interpretation. You made that up, Faith. It isn't remotely true.
There is rarely the definiteness of the sort of find you get in the hard sciences. You can't fudge the shape of the DNA molecule for instance, you can't fudge its chemical components, but you CAN fudge the meaning of mutations because of their variety of effects and lack of consistency. You CAN get away with supposing a whole era of time from the fossil contents of a slab of rock because there is really no way to prove it one way or the other. You can fudge these things 'cos of your vast ignorance of the facts and the scientific method. Scientists would find it much harder.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Faith writes: Over and over in the debate here it's just one interpretation against another, because that's what this science is made of, interpretation. Ignoring data, making stuff up and blatantly telling untruths about reality can't be counted as as interpretation. Your assumption that educated people will be to stupid to realize what you're doing isn't working for your side, either. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2402 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
'I don't understand it. I don't feel the need to understand it. I think it's silly that you think I should study and understand it before I analyse and render a verdict. But, rest assured that from my position of little knowledge I can promise you that the data is being fudged.'
Sound almost exactly like the position of one George McReady Price when Harold Clark, one of his prized students got off his ass and went to the field to compare what Price said against the evidence. Clark wrote back :
quote: The report was that Price was 'enraged'. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
ThinAirDesigns writes: Who were those guys? Why should anyone take notice of what they said?
Sound almost exactly like the position of one George McReady Price when Harold Clark,...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The sequence and extent of the strata described in that quote support the Flood very nicely. I don't argue with the apparent order of the fossil contents at all, contrary to the views expressed here. I have no knowledge of the work of Price. He's your guy, not mine.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Faith writes: Strata? I can't see anything like "strata" in that quote. Are you telling untruths again, Faith?
The sequence and extent of the strata described in that quote support the Flood very nicely. I don't argue with the apparent order of the fossil contents at all, contrary to the views expressed here. I have no knowledge of the work of Price. He's your guy, not mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My opponents have a habit of hallucinating "untruths" in my opinions where there are none. Be that as it may, "strata" are indeed the main subject of the quotation, which would be the case even if the word itself wasn't used, but the fact is that the word IS in the paragraph:
The rocks do lie in a much more definite sequence than we have ever allowed... All over the Midwest the rocks lie in great sheets extending over hundreds of miles, in regular order. Thousands of well cores prove this. ...The sequence of the microscopic fossils in the strata is remarkably uniform. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: Just how likely do you think it is that anyone committed to the established way of looking at these things would want to find something that might overthrow the whole idea of evolution anyway? That is a very important and telling statement Faith because that is exactly what happened in real life. Geologist and all other scientists were committed to the established idea that the earth was young, that there had been a Biblical Flood, that Special Creation actually happened and went out looking for evidence that supported and would confirm the established idea. What they found though was that there was overwhelming evidence that the Earth was very old, that man was not a Special Creation but instead the result of billions of years of evolution and that there was absolute evidence that no world wide flood had happened at anytime when man existed on Earth. In fact the evidence was so complete, so totally convincing that in just one lifetime every scientist in every field of knowledge agreed that the established paradigm that there had been a Biblical Flood, that Special Creation and a young Earth actually happened was simply wrong and had to be abandoned. The evidence shows that Science as opposed to Dogma does overthrow established ideas when the evidence demands it. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Edited by jar, : fix sub-titleAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2402 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Faith, the point of the Clark quote was not to compare any technical position you may or may not hold similar to Price, but to illustrate the commonality between the two states of mind.
Price was an 'arm chair' geologist (actually, not a geologist at all as opposed to his fancy) who liked to talk a lot but didn't really think it was necessary for him to learn if it meant things turned out different than his ignorance held them to be. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
George McCready Price (Wikipedia) was a Canadian creationist and the True Father of Flood Geology -- Henry Morris stole that baby from its crib and claimed the credit. A Seventh-Day Adventist, he wrote about his ideas about geology 1906 to 1923. His degrees were awarded to him by Seventh-Day Adventists schools based mainly on his writings and hence were honorary. He used them to teach in a number of Seventh-Day Adventist colleges.
The article notes:
quote: Le plus a change, le plus la mme chose. Faith, he is your guy through and through. Your ignorance of creationism is no excuse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: The sequence and extent of the strata described in that quote support the Flood very nicely. You keep making claims like the above Faith yet you (as well as every other so called Flood believer) never provide a model, method, process, procedure or thingamabob that actually explains the way any flood could sort the fossils in the order that they are found, sort materials to lay down geological layers in the sequence they are found or any other evidence found in reality. If you wish to continue to make such claims then don't you think it is about time you actually provided a model, method, process, procedure or thingamabob that actually explains the way any flood could sort the fossils in the order that they are found, sort materials to lay down geological layers in the sequence they are found or any other evidence found in reality.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The sequence and extent of the strata described in that quote support the Flood very nicely. Perhaps you could relate that to the topic by explaining why the sequence of the strata does not exhibit hydraulic sorting.
I don't argue with the apparent order of the fossil contents at all, contrary to the views expressed here. Do you have any way of explaining it? *cough * topic *cough *
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith, he is your guy through and through. Your ignorance of creationism is no excuse. Going by the quote Thin Air put up Price is not my guy because I agree with the quote which was an argument against some of his claims. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024