|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Firstly, it's not jar's idea, it is perfectly standard Bible scholarship.
And I'd say it is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the confused nature of the story. What is your explanation for that ? God got confused and didn't understand what happened ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So the story is not intended to be an accurate account of events.
quote: There certainly are differences, but that hardly seems to be the case here.
quote: That hardly fits what you are saying at all. If that were the entire problem we should be able to work out when most of the events occurred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: How would you know ? If the account is intended to be accurate we should at least be able to work out the order of events. But you say that we can't.
quote: No. A word here or there should not cause this degree of confusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The Burgess Shale contained fossils so odd that they were originally assigned to previously-unknown phyla. That often turned out to be wrong, but the bizarre Hallucigenia was found to be related to the obscure velvet worms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Are you now suggesting that the strata containing tracks were the original pre-flood surface rather than being laid down in the receding stages of the flood ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
That's why taxonomic classifications are important. They are more objective and rely on more detailed observation than a subjective impression of "strangeness"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Footprints are an obvious problem for you. You need dry (relatively speaking) land that will later be deeply covered and you need living animals. Those obviously point to very early stages of the flood, and ideally the original landscape. But that ends up creating other problems for you - it becomes very difficult to explain anything lower down in terms of the flood.
The mainstream scientific view has no such problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: What strange ideas you have. Do you imagine that all life is immortal with no birth and death ? No. All life dies, eventually, and some of those that die become fossils, But many of the dead leave descendants, and so life continues. Even after the greatest mass extinctions we know of some life survived and left descendants. Your idea to the contrary is just a fiction of your own invention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, you certainly are not. What you are describing sounds more like Flood geology. There I think we can legitimately ask how anything survived all the earlier disasters to be alive and making tracks in the later stages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
is there any chance of sensible discussion here ?
If you can't be bothered to understand the opposing viewpoint you could at least stop making up stupid strawman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I suggest actually learning about the evidence before jumping to conclusions based heavily on your own biases. You make that mistake over and over again and all you are doing is wasting everyone's time. Especially yours, since you only hurt your own case.
There is absolutely no reason to think that all life is exterminated at the end of each geological period. I suppose you are making your usual,error of assuming that the geological periods are sharply defined, and that the changeover from life typical of one period to the next is an equally sharp transition. If so, that is a mistake, not evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: In general, they did not. They didn't have to. Oh, in cases where the environment changed significantly or there was a major disaster the local populations might be forced to move elsewhere or even die out. But there will often be other environments to move to, and other populations of the species. You certainly aren't going to see all life on Earth wiped out that way as you claim.
quote: Really Faith, I find it hard to believe that you could honestly say that. Fossils are found in rocks deposited at the time the orginal creature died. If the life present on the planet changed over time, then we should see that change reflected in the fossil record - and in fact that is the only reasonable explanation for the fossil record as we see it. Or to put it simply, if a species went extinct 150 million years ago, we should not expect to find fossils of that species in rocks formed from sediment deposited 50 million years ago. If you think otherwise you are going to have to come up with an explanation. And before you argue that extinction supports your claim, just remember this: you deny evolution but your opponents here do not. Distant descendants do not have to be the same species as their ancestors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Really that depends on what is left and how expert the eye. I wouldn't think that a wooden dwelling that has rotted away would leave much that you would recognise. And really you miss the essential point. Modern humans live on the modern surface - and to become rock a surface is going to be buried more deeply than archaeological remains. So THAT is where the life "moved" to - the new surface formed by the sediment that is being deposited.
quote: Generally it's the same for both. People and animals live on the surface as it is today, not deeply buried surfaces from long ago. It really is that simple. So, no, the landscape becoming rock isn't a problem for anything living there because at that time there isn't anything living there. The life is all up above, on the surface that existed then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: It actually answers all your objections, if you bother to understand it. Perhaps that is why you continue to drag this out with your scornful incomprehension
quote: They don't exactly move up to a higher level, they just stay on the surface rather than allowing the sediment to bury them. Just as people and animals do today. Likewise with erosion - look at the world today. Do you see many areas rendered completely uninhabitable just by erosion ? As I've said more than once before fossils are typically buried in sediments laid down around the time that they died. This should be obvious. So, as the life populating the earth changes - species go extinct and are replaced by others that have already evolved - the fossils from different times show that change. Again this should be obvious, So what is the problem ? What are you actually having trouble with ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: So, we are discussing where things would be living at the point in time where the older sediment is being lithified. Don't you think that jumping so far into the future is going to confuse the issue ? After all, if you are only worried about whether things are living on that surface it only needs to be covered by later sediment.
quote: if it is far above, then we are likely talking about distant descendants of the life that lived on the deeply-buried surface. But what makes you think that we do not find the descendants of older life further up the strata ? This seems to be only your assumption, not a real problem.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024