Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 511 of 1163 (787931)
07-23-2016 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 510 by ringo
07-23-2016 11:39 AM


Accretion
ICANT writes:
I believe the early earth grew by accretion of materials supplied by asteroids, such as the one that produced the crater in the Gulf of Mexico.
Both of you are right.
The early earth during the late heavy bombardment grew because of a large flux of asteroids. By 3.8 billion years ago it had ended.
Since then there are tonnes and tonnes of material added by micrometeorites and the occasionally bigger hunk of rock but these amount to a tiny fraction of the current size of the earth so it isn't material to this discussion. The Chicxulub creator was formed billions of years after the LHB and isn't relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by ringo, posted 07-23-2016 11:39 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 512 of 1163 (787940)
07-24-2016 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
07-22-2016 1:23 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Hi Faith,
Let me have a try.
I am not a geologist, so I welcome correction from those who know more than me, but here goes.
You seem to not understand how a slab of rock is the environment, well in most cases the rocks we see are not THE environment, but show EVIDENCE of it.
Most sedimentary rocks are laid down in water - such as lakes, deltas, seas, river flats.
Consider a lake. On its bed it will have remains of critters and vegetation growing in it, but also animals - or more usually bits thereof - living on the nearby land and washed in by streams or local floods. Along with that there will also be pollens and pieces of vegetation from the land. As streams wash in mud and silt the bits on the lake bed get covered.
Eventually with changes in the area like uplift or sea transgression the lake bed will become stone. Millions of years later geologists examine the rocks and see evidence of what the land was like alongside the lake, and infer a landscape with plants and animals in it.
The rocks are not the landscape, but they show what it was like.
In addition to exposed rock layers in streams and rivers, there must be millions of bores that have been drilled into land, lakes, rivers, and seas in the last 200 years which also show the ordering of the fossils talked about here, and you are no nearer explaining that than GRI is. Remember their unsolved questions? There is one easy answer for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 1:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 9:29 AM Pollux has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 513 of 1163 (787950)
07-24-2016 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 512 by Pollux
07-24-2016 2:15 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Let me have a try.
I am not a geologist, so I welcome correction from those who know more than me, but here goes.
You seem to not understand how a slab of rock is the environment, well in most cases the rocks we see are not THE environment, but show EVIDENCE of it.
Oh I understand all that, all right, I reject it with every sane cell in my body.
Most sedimentary rocks are laid down in water - such as lakes, deltas, seas, river flats.
Today, yes, but the strata could not possibly have been formed in such small bodies of water with such distinctive boundaries. The strata are commonly enormous, huge, flat flat flat thick thick thick blocks of rock.
Consider a lake. On its bed it will have remains of critters and vegetation growing in it, but also animals - or more usually bits thereof - living on the nearby land and washed in by streams or local floods. Along with that there will also be pollens and pieces of vegetation from the land. As streams wash in mud and silt the bits on the lake bed get covered.
Eventually with changes in the area like uplift or sea transgression the lake bed will become stone.
Theoretically, it could happen, but there is no way a lake is going to turn into the huge flat rocks of the strata.
Millions of years later geologists examine the rocks and see evidence of what the land was like alongside the lake, and infer a landscape with plants and animals in it.
The rocks are not the landscape, but they show what it was like.
You think I somehow failed to grasp this? In the case of the strata, however, I'm afraid there is every reason to say that the rock IS the landscape. It's where the whole scenario of the "time period" had to have been played out. There is no separate land "alongside" the rock, all there is is the rock, in many cases spanning hundreds of thousands of square miles, and that's where the imagined landscape had to have been.
In addition to exposed rock layers in streams and rivers, there must be millions of bores that have been drilled into land, lakes, rivers, and seas in the last 200 years which also show the ordering of the fossils talked about here, and you are no nearer explaining that than GRI is. Remember their unsolved questions? There is one easy answer for them.
What the bore holes demonstrate above all is the enormous area covered by the strata, as well as their depth, and the order of the rocks and the fossils, however hard to explain in terms of the Flood, just isn't all that important in the light of all the problems for OE theory --although I think the many creationist theories about it must all go some way to explaining it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Pollux, posted 07-24-2016 2:15 AM Pollux has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by mike the wiz, posted 07-24-2016 10:45 AM Faith has replied
 Message 515 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 12:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 527 by Pressie, posted 07-25-2016 7:02 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 528 by ringo, posted 07-25-2016 11:45 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 514 of 1163 (787955)
07-24-2016 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Faith
07-24-2016 9:29 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
faith you might enjoy this rather amusing example of how long ages for rocks, just don't, "fit". The video is only ten minutes long but obviously when you listen to these two guys, and what they say, to be honest the SENSE of what they say is so much greater than any theoretically implausible scenario that it's laughable, as was the old-age explanation. (Just don't go diving, you might end up as a fossil, I know I have seen at least 50 people this summer, at the bottom of the ocean with their heads stuck in the mud.) LOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e6YHCJ4A5s

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 9:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Tangle, posted 07-24-2016 2:00 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:05 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 519 by Toby, posted 07-24-2016 2:34 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 515 of 1163 (787961)
07-24-2016 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Faith
07-24-2016 9:29 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
quote:
Oh I understand all that, all right, I reject it with every sane cell in my body.
Rejecting obvious facts is not usually considered a sign of sanity.
quote:
Today, yes, but the strata could not possibly have been formed in such small bodies of water with such distinctive boundaries. The strata are commonly enormous, huge, flat flat flat thick thick thick blocks of rocK
So if a stratum was said to have formed in a lake you would reject the idea because other strata are a lot bigger. That doesn't really make much sense.
quote:
You think I somehow failed to grasp this? In the case of the strata, however, I'm afraid there is every reason to say that the rock IS the landscape. It's where the whole scenario of the "time period" had to have been played out. There is no separate land "alongside" the rock, all there is is the rock, in many cases spanning hundreds of thousands of square miles, and that's where the imagined landscape had to have been
It's weird. First you argue that we don't have the landscape, only evidence which we use to infer it (and you try to pretend that most of that doesn't exist). Now you are trying to say otherwise. Now obviously the effects of compaction and lithification and sometimes erosion are going to change what was there. That's why we find fossil tree stumps rather than living trees.
quote:
What the bore holes demonstrate above all is the enormous area covered by the strata, as well as their depth, and the order of the rocks and the fossils, however hard to explain in terms of the Flood, just isn't all that important in the light of all the problems for OE theory --although I think the many creationist theories about it must all go some way to explaining it.
Again, not all strata are so extensive and making foolish generalisations hardly helps your case. You've yet to demonstrate any serious problems for the scientific view - which should surprise nobody. Creationist explanations for the order of the fossil record fail miserably - but I invite you to argue otherwise since it actually is on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 9:29 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:38 PM PaulK has replied

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


(2)
Message 516 of 1163 (787966)
07-24-2016 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by mike the wiz
07-24-2016 10:45 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Mike writes:
faith you might enjoy this rather amusing example of how long ages for rocks, just don't, "fit". The video is only ten minutes long but obviously when you listen to these two guys, and what they say, to be honest the SENSE of what they say is so much greater than any theoretically implausible scenario that it's laughable, as was the old-age explanation. (Just don't go diving, you might end up as a fossil, I know I have seen at least 50 people this summer, at the bottom of the ocean with their heads stuck in the mud.) LOL.
It's a slow, dampish day here so I entertained myself by watching your video, then found the actual science is supposedly based on. It won't surprise others here to find that what is claimed in the video is a collection of lies, misrepresentations and misinterpretations. It's a damn shame that so called religious people have to sin like this, it can't be good for their chances in the after-life. So much because they are deliberately trying to mislead others.
Anywho, here's the detailed, point by point rebuttal by the scientist who described the fossil:
I'm sure that now you know the real facts ratherthan the lies you've been fed by your 'betters' you stop posting this sort of nonsense and do a little bit of your own work to establish the facts
"LOL
http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/analysis.php?artiID=20
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 514 by mike the wiz, posted 07-24-2016 10:45 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:11 PM Tangle has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 517 of 1163 (787967)
07-24-2016 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by mike the wiz
07-24-2016 10:45 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Thanks, they did a good job. It seems so obvious, how could the evos not get it, or at least an evo here or there? I guess I'll never learn. I know we're all spiritually dead before we're saved* but I don't remember being that stu/pid before I was saved, so I keep expecting one of these smart evos to get it, and they never do, all they do is multiply weird excuses.
*What's even more depressing is the Christians who don't get it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by mike the wiz, posted 07-24-2016 10:45 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 518 of 1163 (787969)
07-24-2016 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by Tangle
07-24-2016 2:00 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
I tried reading through that and somehow managed not to get what you think it's revealing. Partly due to my bad eyes which require me to get through it as fast as possible. Perhaps you could translate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Tangle, posted 07-24-2016 2:00 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by Tangle, posted 07-24-2016 4:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Toby
Junior Member (Idle past 2799 days)
Posts: 1
From: Before the Big Bang
Joined: 07-22-2016


(1)
Message 519 of 1163 (787973)
07-24-2016 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by mike the wiz
07-24-2016 10:45 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
These guys are idiots. The whole purpose of the "show" is to dumb down the science so they can attack it in front of a bunch of people who don't know any better (such as yourself). Five minutes looking at the ACTUAL science will show you that these two morons have no idea what they're talking about.
Here is a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Ew2SaB1Pc
Around the 25:00 mark Smith posts a quote (mine) from a paper in an attempt to give the impression that even scientists question the chromosomal fusion in 2q13-2q14. If you read the ACTUAL PAPER - Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes - PMC - the authors do indeed make this statement, HOWEVER, they then go on to give three plausible explanations for the degeneration.
Would you care to explain why these two felt it necessary to quote mine in order to make their argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by mike the wiz, posted 07-24-2016 10:45 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 3:25 PM Toby has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 520 of 1163 (787974)
07-24-2016 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by PaulK
07-24-2016 12:51 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Oh I understand all that, all right, I reject it with every sane cell in my body.
Rejecting obvious facts is not usually considered a sign of sanity.
Calling an interpretation a fact isn't very sane either. I reject the idea that the clues in the rock prove an actual environment.
quote:
Today, yes, but the strata could not possibly have been formed in such small bodies of water with such distinctive boundaries. The strata are commonly enormous, huge, flat flat flat thick thick thick blocks of rocK
So if a stratum was said to have formed in a lake you would reject the idea because other strata are a lot bigger. That doesn't really make much sense.
You can't get a stratum, a thick flat rock that extends over a huge area, from a lake. Strata would not form in a lake. You'd get a rock but not a layer. Of course it doesn't make sense to you. You're used to accepting the weird idea that if there are any signs of anything reminiscent of a lake environment in the rock that means there was a lake right there in that "time period."
quote:
You think I somehow failed to grasp this? In the case of the strata, however, I'm afraid there is every reason to say that the rock IS the landscape. It's where the whole scenario of the "time period" had to have been played out. There is no separate land "alongside" the rock, all there is is the rock, in many cases spanning hundreds of thousands of square miles, and that's where the imagined landscape had to have been
It's weird. First you argue that we don't have the landscape, only evidence which we use to infer it (and you try to pretend that most of that doesn't exist). Now you are trying to say otherwise.
The problem is that you apparently can't tell when I'm characterizing the opinion I disagree with rather than stating my own opinion, so you think I'm saying both and contradicting myself. How you could make such a mistake after everything I've said is hard to understand but anything to confuse things I suppose, no point in stopping to make sense of something you don't want to make sense of.
Now obviously the effects of compaction and lithification and sometimes erosion are going to change what was there. That's why we find fossil tree stumps rather than living trees.
Eh?
quote:
What the bore holes demonstrate above all is the enormous area covered by the strata, as well as their depth, and the order of the rocks and the fossils, however hard to explain in terms of the Flood, just isn't all that important in the light of all the problems for OE theory --although I think the many creationist theories about it must all go some way to explaining it.
Again, not all strata are so extensive and making foolish generalisations hardly helps your case.
Your usual display of grace and generosity. I keep having the core samples from the Midwest in mind that cover the ENTIRE midwest, that Thin Air posted some time ago. And the problem here is your refusal to give me the credit for knowing that the strata cover different areas, since I've said it often enough. All it takes is not saying it occasionally for you to turn it into an accusation -- the usual cheap shot from you.
[qs]
You've yet to demonstrate any serious problems for the scientific view - which should surprise nobody.
I don't expect anything to surprise you. It could take a big bite out of your butt and you wouldn't get it.
Creationist explanations for the order of the fossil record fail miserably - but I invite you to argue otherwise since it actually is on topic.
OE has been defeated over and over again; there's no actual order in the fossil record to consider.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 12:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 3:14 PM Faith has replied
 Message 526 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-25-2016 1:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 521 of 1163 (787980)
07-24-2016 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by Faith
07-24-2016 2:38 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
quote:
Calling an interpretation a fact isn't very sane either. I reject the idea that the clues in the rock prove an actual environment
Reading in context the statement you rejected claimed that the rocks contained evidence of past environments. This is a fact. That you reject the interpretation of the evidence - even though the interpretation is eminently sensible - with such vehemence is not good either - but that isn't what you said.
quote:
You can't get a stratum, a thick flat rock that extends over a huge area, from a lakE
Oh, this is one of those arguments where you rely on your own mistaken definitions of words. A stratum is just a layer. It is still a stratum if it has a quite limited extent. And the strata attributed to (individual) lakes do. As I said.
And yes you would get a layer. Why wouldn't you ?
quote:
The problem is that you apparently can't tell when I'm characterizing the opinion I disagree with rather than stating my own opinion, so you think I'm saying both and contradicting myself.
That is sort of confusing when I, certainly, am arguing that things have changed enough that we cannot truly say that we have the landscape, but that we do have evidence of it.
So you certainly weren't accurately characterising my position when you say that the rock is the landscape.
Moreover, I took it as a reference to your idea that the landscape would have been rock when there are creatures living on it. And that is certainly not a view that any of your opponents (or geology) takes at all.
quote:
Eh?
Perhaps the explanation of my position above makes it clearer.
quote:
I keep having the core samples from the Midwest in mind that cover the ENTIRE midwest, that Thin Air posted some time ago. And the problem here is your refusal to give me the credit for knowing that the strata cover different areas, since I've said it often enough. All it takes is not saying it occasionally for you to turn it into an accusation -- the usual cheap shot from you.
The point in question was that some strata do not cover large areas. And since you make the same mistake above either you didn't know that - or you used an argument you know to be false. Take your pick.
quote:
I don't expect anything to surprise you. It could take a big bite out of your butt and you wouldn't get it.
And the usual nastiness from Faith, the sore loser.
quote:
OE has been defeated over and over again; there's no actual order in the fossil record to consider.
The first is just false bluster. For the second, William Smithnand two centuries worth of geology after him say that you are dead wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 3:21 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 522 of 1163 (787982)
07-24-2016 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by PaulK
07-24-2016 3:14 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Poor William Smith; poor James Hutton; poor Charles Lyell. A legacy of Wrongness in spite of their obvious talents, but it's their wrongness that has misled generations. Very sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 3:14 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2016 3:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 523 of 1163 (787983)
07-24-2016 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Toby
07-24-2016 2:34 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
they then go on to give three plausible explanations for the degeneration.
But of course. As the creationists point out, there is no end to the plausible explanations for anything an evo's little heart desires, because it's all the kind of science that can never be proved or disproved, it's all just a tissue of subjective interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Toby, posted 07-24-2016 2:34 PM Toby has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by jar, posted 07-26-2016 9:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 524 of 1163 (787986)
07-24-2016 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Faith
07-24-2016 3:21 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
It is funny that someone who claims to be honest has such a negative view of telling the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 3:21 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 525 of 1163 (788000)
07-24-2016 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by Faith
07-24-2016 2:11 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Faith writes:
I tried reading through that and somehow managed not to get what you think it's revealing. Partly due to my bad eyes which require me to get through it as fast as possible. Perhaps you could translate?
Oh come on Faith, you very quickly and without further inquiry, accepted a youtube video from a guy that knows nothing about the subject, then plead inability to read when confronted with the facts from the guy that actually described the fossil.
The translation - not that it's necessary - is that the youtube is a bloody great lie. It's very simple to read and understand.

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 518 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:11 PM Faith 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