Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
190 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 187 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,835 Year: 1,583/23,288 Month: 1,583/1,851 Week: 223/484 Day: 41/105 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15844
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 376 of 1163 (787599)
07-19-2016 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Faith
07-19-2016 1:33 AM


Re: fossil order is subjective
quote:

Comparative anatomy is also an exercise in subjectivity. I'd say the same thing about that.

A massive exaggeration (I'll point out that even creationists praise Linnaeus). And even so our explanations of the order are distinct from the order itself. And that order is an objective fact.

quote:

As for killing the Flood, hardly. Not being able to explain the fossil record is nothing compared to all the positive evidence we can muster to show that only the Flood could account for the facts while the OE stuff is just silly.

Let me make an analogy to your favourite argument:

"Gentlemen of the jury forensic examiners have retrieved fingerprints, DNA and fibres from clothing from the scene of the crime. Experts assure us that the defendant has DNA, and as you can see he has fingers and is wearing clothes. Surely this is undeniable evidence of his guilt"

Presumably you would say that the pointing out that neither the fingerprints nor the DNA match, and the fibres cannot be traced to any clothing in the defendant's possession are "just silly", worthless compared to the "terrific evidence" that the prosecutor presented.

And you would be wrong - just as you are wrong now, and for much the same reasons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 1:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 377 of 1163 (787600)
07-19-2016 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Faith
07-19-2016 12:55 AM


Re: fossil order is subjective
That one might not be as obvious though, but there's nothing obviously more complex about birds over mammals ...

This is so patently true that I am at a loss to know why you would mention it.

There's simply nothing objectively obvious about the order you all make so much of as proving evolution up the chart.

The order is both objective and obvious.

Your argument, insofar as it is coherent, seems to be that there are other orders that would also be consistent with evolution. That is true: but in the first place the one we have is consistent with evolution, in the second place, there are many more things we could conceivably find in the fossil record that would not be consistent with evolution; and in the third place, and most germane to this thread, it is completely inconsistent with Flood Geology. Which is why the thread is called The Great Creationist Fossil Failure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 12:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 378 of 1163 (787601)
07-19-2016 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Faith
07-19-2016 1:33 AM


"Positive Evidence"
Not being able to explain the fossil record is nothing compared to all the positive evidence we can muster to show that only the Flood could account for the facts ...

Last I checked this "positive evidence" was:

(1) Many of the sediments in sedimentary rocks were laid down with original horizontality, just like we can see real processes doing today without a magical impossible Flood.

(2) The geological record shows that in the past some parts of the planet were covered with water, just as is the case today without a magical impossible Flood.

I think I can see my way to explaining those things without invoking a magical impossible Flood, but if you have any other points you'd like to adduce which you think would give me more difficulty, please feel free to start a thread. On this one, perhaps you could try to explain the order in the fossil record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 1:33 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7297
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 379 of 1163 (787602)
07-19-2016 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by Faith
07-19-2016 12:55 AM


Re: fossil order is subjective
Faith writes:

You know, I think if the order of, say, the amphibians and reptiles were reversed, or the mammals and birds changed places, or ferns and flowering plants, you'd explain that order as proving the same point,

Sorry Faith, that doesn't work. Organisms develop in particular orders because they have to, but the particular order is not the only relevant point here.

If you imagine that cats, dogs and pigs arrived in the world one million years apart - they didn't, it's just a way of thinking about it - you'd expect them to always be found in the fossil record in that order. We say they are.

But if there was a global flood you'd expect to find all those animals jumbled up together.

That's not what we find so you have to explain how a flood sorted cats, dogs and pigs into seperate layers and never got a single one in the wrong layer. Not one.

If you prefer make the animals marbles. We find three diferent coloured marbles in rocks that we say are of different ages. Red, blue and yellow. We never find a red marble in the same rock as a blue and so on. This is easily explained by the marbles existing at different times and laid down independantly.

You need to explain how a flood organised all the marbles in their individual levels when they would have all been swirling around together.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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 371 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 12:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34516
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 380 of 1163 (787603)
07-19-2016 4:25 AM


Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
There are more pressing problems with the Old Earth scenario:


Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by PaulK, posted 07-19-2016 4:36 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 382 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2016 4:45 AM Faith has responded
 Message 387 by herebedragons, posted 07-19-2016 1:10 PM Faith has responded
 Message 391 by edge, posted 07-19-2016 2:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15844
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 381 of 1163 (787604)
07-19-2016 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by Faith
07-19-2016 4:25 AM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
So real problems for your position "don't matter" but "problems" that you've invented for the Old Earth position do ?

I think that pretty much everyone will disagree with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 4:25 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 382 of 1163 (787605)
07-19-2016 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by Faith
07-19-2016 4:25 AM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
There are more pressing problems with the Old Earth scenario:

Wildly inaccurate cartoons produced by halfwits are not a problem with the Old Earth scenario, since there is nothing in the Old Earth scenario that predicts that halfwits will not be able to draw cartoons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 4:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 5:08 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34516
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 383 of 1163 (787606)
07-19-2016 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2016 4:45 AM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
What you don't get is that all those scenes you ascribe to various Time Periods are purely imaginary. The actual evidence is the surface of slabs of rock that are all stacked up. They are associated with Time Periods, whose supposed character is constructed out of some characteristics of the rock plus the flotsam within the rock, but the actual evidence is merely the rock and its superficial characteristics.

If you like you may draw some dinosaur footprints wherever indicated on the surface of a particular rock, some other fossilized impressions perhaps, or some ripple marks, burrow holes, raindrops etc. But the point is that the surface of these rocks is ALL you have to represent the actual surface of the Earth in the indicated Time Period. You have no mountains, rivers, trees, canyons, etc. except as imaginary constructs you impose on these clues.

All you have is the relatively flat surface of sedimentary rocks. I'm going through this book about the Grand Canyon that led off the thread on AIG's view of the canyon, and of course it's full of drawings of the strata, all identified with the Time Period assigned to each. The surfaces of these strata cover enormous swaths of geography; they are the ONLY physical representation of the actual surface of the earth in the assigned time period, obviously a flattish rock surface with some markings on it, and NOTHING ELSE.

There is something very very wrong with this picture but you don't see it, do you? What you "see" is what you IMAGINE was there, not the strata themselves which is ALL that was there.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2016 4:45 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by PaulK, posted 07-19-2016 5:34 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 385 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2016 7:48 AM Faith has responded
 Message 386 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2016 8:10 AM Faith has responded
 Message 389 by edge, posted 07-19-2016 1:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15844
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 384 of 1163 (787607)
07-19-2016 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
07-19-2016 5:08 AM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
You're making off-topic assertions that have already been shown to be false in this thread. And doing so in an attempt to dismiss the very strong evidence against your beliefs that is the topic.

Yes I'd say that there is something very wrong with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 5:08 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 385 of 1163 (787611)
07-19-2016 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
07-19-2016 5:08 AM


More Creationist Epistemological Bollocks
But the point is that the surface of these rocks is ALL you have to represent the actual surface of the Earth in the indicated Time Period. You have no mountains, rivers, trees, canyons, etc. except as imaginary constructs you impose on these clues.

You mean like dinosaurs are "imaginary constructs" that I "impose" on the dinosaur bones and footprints?

(Or perhaps like the mountains, rivers, trees, canyons, etc. that I think exist today are imaginary constructs I impose on my sense-data?)

What you "see" is what you IMAGINE was there, not the strata themselves which is ALL that was there.

Really? Usually you claim that there was some sort of flood.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 5:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 7:13 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 386 of 1163 (787612)
07-19-2016 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
07-19-2016 5:08 AM


"Something [Unspecified] Very Wrong"
There is something very very wrong with this picture but you don't see it, do you?

Well, explain it to me. What's very wrong?

You mention rivers. I can in fact see some rivers that were present in the Jurassic which are still here doing their thing. However, other ancient rivers have dried up, and when that is the case I would not expect to see the actual river, would I? What I would expect to see is the sediment it deposited, which will stay there after the water is gone. And I do in fact see geological formations that look just like that.

Since there are old rivers, there are also old canyons: but again, if the forces that erode a canyon have been absent for millions of years, I would expect to see the canyon filled in with sediment. And I do in fact see geological formations that look just like that.

If a tree grew a million years ago then I don't expect to see it still growing: but under the right conditions I might see it fossilized. And I do in fact see fossils that look just like fossils of trees.

Mountains usually last for millions of years, so I can in fact see mountains that were there in the Jurassic Period. The Appalachians, for example, have been there ever since the Ordovician, and though of course they're smaller now, they're still there, Faith; and even you would have some difficulty in describing the Appalachian Mountains as "a flattish rock surface with some markings on it, and NOTHING ELSE".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 5:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 7:48 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 121 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(5)
Message 387 of 1163 (787617)
07-19-2016 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Faith
07-19-2016 4:25 AM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
Faith writes:

Remember how these "slabs of rock" don't cover the ENTIRE surface of the earth? You have left those parts out of your illustration.

Remember the monadocks that jutted up through the Tapeats? You have left those out of your illustration.

Remember the buried canyons that were detected by seismic imagery? You left those out of your illustration.

Remember the channels that flowed at the surface of the Mauv limestone and were later filled in with Temple Butte formations (end of Cambrian)? You left those out of your illustration.

Remember that the layers in the GC are not uniform in thickness and some go from very thick to non-existent - even within the canyon? You left that out of your illustration.

Remember the flat lands of the central plains states? You left those out of your "surface of the earth today" drawing.

In short, you are comparing a mountainous section of the surface of the earth today with a flat section of the earth in the past. If you were actually trying to make a drawing that represented the way the surfaces ACTUALLY looked at those times, they would be very different and would include the ACTUAL features present at those times. You are just cherry picking.

BTW: nice illustration, even if it is not very realistic.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 4:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by edge, posted 07-19-2016 1:58 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 8:37 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 95 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 388 of 1163 (787618)
07-19-2016 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Faith
07-19-2016 12:55 AM


Re: fossil order is subjective
You know, I think if the order of, say, the amphibians and reptiles were reversed, or the mammals and birds changed places, or ferns and flowering plants, you'd explain that order as proving the same point, because it's all a subjective classification system. The substitutions would still suggest the same evolutionary order. You'd probably explain the order as increasing complexity or whatnot. Because although amphibians would seem to follow fishes and precede reptiles, it's because that IS the order that leads to that conclusion, but there's nothing really obvious about that, you could just say something like, "amphibians are obviously more complex than reptiles."
That one might not be as obvious though, but there's nothing obviously more complex about birds over mammals, and you could emphasize the seeming relationship between reptiles and birds if they occurred in the fossil record between reptiles and mammals, the way you do dinosaurs and birds.

And it seems to me flowering plants could easily be seen as more primitive than ferns, if that was the actual order instead of the one we have.

I can't prove it, but I suspect it. There's simply nothing objectively obvious about the order you all make so much of as proving evolution up the chart. Not just any substitution could be made of course, because there is something plausible about the order after all, but I do think that's really all it is, it's just a plausible mental arrangement that has no real objective reality.


Faith, although there is a definite order, the topic is not about that order of fossils per se, or whether they are more/less complex with time.

The question is 'why is there an order at all?'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 12:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 95 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 389 of 1163 (787619)
07-19-2016 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Faith
07-19-2016 5:08 AM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
What you don't get is that all those scenes you ascribe to various Time Periods are purely imaginary. The actual evidence is the surface of slabs of rock that are all stacked up. They are associated with Time Periods, whose supposed character is constructed out of some characteristics of the rock plus the flotsam within the rock, but the actual evidence is merely the rock and its superficial characteristics.

If you like you may draw some dinosaur footprints wherever indicated on the surface of a particular rock, some other fossilized impressions perhaps, or some ripple marks, burrow holes, raindrops etc. But the point is that the surface of these rocks is ALL you have to represent the actual surface of the Earth in the indicated Time Period. You have no mountains, rivers, trees, canyons, etc. except as imaginary constructs you impose on these clues.


Actually, no. You can ignore all of those 'superficial' data if you want. But every one of them tells you something about the source, transport and deposition of that rock or stratum.

For instance, the very fact that you have sandstone indicates that erosion is going on someplace and sand is being transported to the site.

So, the extensive sandstone deposits of the Jurassic on the Colorado Plateau had to come from someplace and mineralogical/geochemical studies show them to have been eroded from the Appalachians to the east. The Appalachians were being eroded in the Jurassic, just as Precambrian rocks were being eroded to form the Tapeats Sandstone.

I have shown you evidence for this in the past.

And we don't 'draw some dinosaur footprints' in a rock just so that we can call them Mesozoic. You are either being flippant or completely ignorant on this. Dinosaurs were land animals the lived during your global flood, in fact, they lived toward the end of your flood.

How did that happen?

We have an answer: evolution.

Maybe you could say that the carcasses of dinosaurs were simply deposited late somehow, but what about footprints? How did dead dinosaurs make footprints in Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks?

Sorting by time (evolution) explains it.

That 'superficial flotsam' (including fossils), provides the clue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 5:08 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 95 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 390 of 1163 (787620)
07-19-2016 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by herebedragons
07-19-2016 1:10 PM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
Remember how these "slabs of rock" don't cover the ENTIRE surface of the earth? You have left those parts out of your illustration.

Remember the monadocks that jutted up through the Tapeats? You have left those out of your illustration.

Remember the buried canyons that were detected by seismic imagery? You left those out of your illustration.

Remember the channels that flowed at the surface of the Mauv limestone and were later filled in with Temple Butte formations (end of Cambrian)? You left those out of your illustration.

Remember that the layers in the GC are not uniform in thickness and some go from very thick to non-existent - even within the canyon? You left that out of your illustration.

Remember the flat lands of the central plains states? You left those out of your "surface of the earth today" drawing.


All imaginary, of course.

Just 'flotsam'.

Superficial.

Oh, and remember, YECs use the same data, just a different interpretation.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by herebedragons, posted 07-19-2016 1:10 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020