|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Well,no. It is possible to apply scientific principles to work out limits on what the Flood could or could not do, and to consider other possible causes that might fit the evidence better. Or it is possible to ignore all that, simply assume the Flood and try to make up half-baked excuses. The first approach has obvious value in finding the truth, the second has none.
quote: And yet we do find river deposits - and desert deposits - within the strata. Not all are laid down by water. And there are numerous other problems with this simplistic assumption. This is more an attempt to hide evidence against the Flood than to present evidence for it.
quote: To say this in a thread dedicated to showing how the fossils contradict the Flood is just breathtakingly dishonest. Indeed, previous discussion has shown that it is doubtful that the Flood can even account for the number of fossils. So, again, more of an attempt to cover up evidence. The dishonest and superficial presentation certainly disqualifies this from being considered "great evidence" of the Flood.
quote: Fairness does not require any such thing. Fairness would require you to deal with the evidence honestly - which you obviously refuse to do.
quote: It is certainly possible to know that this "explanation" is grossly inadequate. It is certainly possible to know that the mainstream scientific view explains the evidence much better. Yet you won't even admit that. Funny how your "fairness" requires us to acknowledge imaginary "strengths" of your position but does not require you to acknowledge the real strengths of ours. How unfair.
quote: On any remotely fair assessment that would be the mainstream scientific view over yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
The order itself is not subjective, so that is one obvious lie. Really, Faith you need to actually find an honest way of dealing with truths you don't like.
Second the fact of the order is enough to kill the Flood, so speculating about how we would handle different orders is pretty much irrelevant. Obviously different orders would have an explanation that differed in some ways.
quote: It's not based on complexity, it's based on comparative anatomy. This is the second time in this thread that you've let your misconceptions about evolution drive your arguments into irrelevance. All you are doing is displaying your ignorance, and we all know how you hate that (although you will doubtless try to blame others, as usual)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Did you not read the quote ? The actual surface was there (of course). What do you think the rivers flowed through ? What do you think the desert was ?
And - of course - this is just an attempt to bury the real topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: is this another of your weird semantic games where you make up your own definition as an excuse to discount all the evidence against you ? Because it's the strata that Tell us that your point is a falsehood.
quote: Nobody says that they lived directly on "slabs of rock". For instance the animals living in the desert lived on the desert sands, just like modern animals living in deserts. The desert wasn't a "slab of rock" then. You even admit that the desert was an "actual feature" at the end of the post, without seeing how that refutes your whole silly argument. Now how about dealing with the topic instead of spouting nonsense ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You do realise that "when the strata were laid down" refers to the deposition of the sediment ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You can call your lies "reasonable observations" or even "facts". But they are still lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Faith, the reason people do not agree with your point is that it is NOT TRUE. Numerous examples have been produced in this thread. You can see some in the post you are replying to. And yet you say that it is irrelevant and that your point is being misunderstood. So, if there is a misunderstanding on our part it is this. We do not understand why the actual facts should be discounted in favour of your assertions. Perhaps you should try explaining that instead of just trotting out the "you don't understand" line.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
I'll leave edge to refute the other silliness but this is just so obvious:
quote: It should be obvious that the real question should be "Since when would a tree be part of a livable landscape?" I really don't think that any more need be said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: But I am not.
quote: And obviously that would be the case, no matter who was right. The point, however, is how did the tree stump get there to be fossilised. If it has roots in place (and there are examples of such) then the evidence indicates that the tree grew there, died and the stump was buried and eventually fossilised. This would be evidence of a livable landscape. Discounting it on the grounds that it is fossilised now IS silly.
quote: Since the tree stumps are in the coal, I would tentatively suggest that the landscape - a peat bog - is right there, compressed and lithified. The coal bed where the stumps are found follows the dip of a stream bed, clearly indicating that that stream was part of the landscape at that time.
quote: It is silly and false to accuse me of "garbling the point" when in fact I am illustrating the silliness of the point. It is silly and false to say that all we have is a flat slab of rock when the bed in question is dips into a channel. It is silly and false to think that making excuses to explain away contrary evidence causes that evidence to cease to exist. The existence of features in the strata prove that the strata are not featureless, no matter what "explanations" you dream up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That is not a valid inference, also it isn't true of all the channels. Look at the small channel on the bottom right. Also the coal seam with the fossil tree stumps dips into the bed of a channel instead of going on top of it.
quote: Obviously it was not flat if it had channels running through it. Also if any of the channels were on the surface it would contradict your idea that all the sediments were deposited at the same time. So it does seem to matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: This is a very odd question, if a bone is found in lithified sediment then surely the sediment beneath it would also be lithified. How could it be any other way ? So, as far as the locations where the fossils are found, the answer is yes. In other places the landscape would have been eroded away, just as erosion happens today. There is absolutely nothing odd about any of this.
quote: This is just more bizarre assumptions on your part. Why assume that massive amounts of sediment suddenly got dumped on the environment rather than it slowly accumulating over time ? The way sediment accumulates in modern environments. Really the whole argument is just a ridiculous strawman. At least try to find out what the mainstream view actually claims rather than making things up,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Why can't we accept that some landscapes would have been lost to erosion ? Only landscapes in areas of net deposition are going to be preserved. So the idea that EVERY landscape has to be preserved is not only something we do not have to imagine, it is something that we should reject.
quote: Since we do find fossil landscapes - river channels, sand dunes, soils - then to the extent your claim is true (the existence of river channels itself is a deviation from flatness - and we have seen other examples) - it does make sense, add in the requirement for net deposition and it makes more sense. The flood plain of a river - for instance - is flat. The other question is does it really make sense to you to expect us deny this evidence in favour of your assumptions ? Surely it does not.
quote: I don't see any madness in it. We can examine rocks and understand the nature of the particles that make them up - their size, shape and chemistry. If we find rock including particles like silt - in size shape and chemistry - on a flat surface adjacent to a fossil river channel it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that the material the rock includes material that was silt spread by the river flooding. How could that be considered "mad" ?Surely it would be madness to reject it out of hand. I'll consider the Grand Staircase later after I have done the research.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024