Summations Only

Yet another utterly stupid assertion from Faith.Until there is any reason to replace the conventional theories of course no one can suggest what that new theory might be. Except of course those folk who want to promote mythology.But I am not trying to change the subject it seems; please look at the actual content of the post to which you are replying?

quote:

---

Yet you offered as usual absolutely no support or reasoning for your position.

​

In addition there is still the fact that there is lots of evidence of regional and local floods, some actually more powerful than the ones described in the Biblical flood myths but there is NO evidence of a world-wide flood at anytime humans might have been alive.

​

Note too that no human fossils have EVER been found in the layer where dinosaur fossils are found.

​

That damn ordering and evidence that there really were landscapes and not just stacks of rocks yet again.

​

The find is yet again more evidence that there were landscapes and not just slabs of rock.

​

Have you finally realized that your topic really is unsupportable, false, futile, absurd and jess plain silly?

---

Again, have you finally realized that your topic really is unsupportable, false, futile, absurd and jess plain silly?

Yawn. Here you are disagreeing with Romans 13 Message 303Although since this is off-topic we can take it to another thread. We can certainly talk about Isaiah 7 and Daniel 8, too.

Change from dust to sand to loess, etc., etc. It doesn't because it is subaerial. We've been over this before. Villages are on the land surface. Your 'strata' are marine formations.This is getting tedious, Faith.

Actually we can see river sediments throughout the geological record. We can tell because they look exactly like modern river sediments.So ... not so pathetic.

Any time you want another try at reconciling the fossil record with the Flood myth, feel free. Ooh, how about ... real geology?You can learn about this here. Over a hundred thousand words of exposition, none of which are "flooddidit".

quote:

---

Sorry, you can't deny a specific claim with a general statement like that. If the current theory is discredited in a particular way to a particular degree there may be only the Flood left as the reasonable alternative and no general assertion can disprove that. If you are going to claim it wouldn't be the reasonable alternative you have to prove it.

---

That would be a wild speculation. If there was evidence that discredited mainstream geology - and that is itself incredibly unlikely - the replacement theory would have to deal with that evidence, as well as all the evidence currently explained by mainstream geology. And we cannot sensibly begin to construct a replacement until we do have that evidence (and we don't). Also, since the Flood is not even a remotely viable explanation for the evidence we do have, it would still be incredibly unlikely that the Flood would be the answer.So no, your attacks on mainstream geology couldn't achieve what you want even if they were true. But since you can't support them in any rational way it really doesn't matter.

My reply to you was to show that most fossils found are missing some to almost all the bones. In message 436 you claimed The majority of dinosaur fossils that are found are incomplete like you would expect if scavengers and decomposition occur before fossilization.You are claiming the Flood providing "PERFECT" conditions for fossilization. How do imperfect and incomplete fossils fit your "PERFECT" scenario?As just one example I found in a couple minutes of searching, Puertasaurus is known based on four vertebrae from a massive animal. If it had been buried and fossilized by the Flood, why wouldn't the rest of the bones be nearby?

Wrong. You are saying that just because I say 2+3=23, your answer of 2+3=32 is right.We could both be wrong. For example in ancient Greece, Asclepius believed disease was caused by the anger of the gods while Hippocrates thought disease was an imbalance in the humors. Proving one wrong does not make the other right.

We don't need to look at "ALL creatures", we could use sampling methods.For example, consider "Lucy". Here's the bones. Now, "Lucy" is the most complete specimen in her entire genus. How many is that? According to this article: So "Lucy" is the best preserved specimen out of (conservatively) 200+ members of her genus. This tells us that good preservation is rare in australopithecines, and unless there's some special reason why that genus should be particularly badly preserved, we may extrapolate from that. The rarity of the conditions is inferred from the number of fossils ...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

OF COURSE NOT, and I said no such thing.But I see no other possible theory myself and the Flood is a good fit, and I'm waiting for someone to suggest a third alternative. So far no show.

What makes "Lucy" anything but a human being anyway?And I always thought there was a paucity of evidence for [abe: buried/fossilized] homo sapiens anyway. The higher in the strata the less evidence perhaps? This is why the number of fossils for all creatures would say more about conditions for fossilization.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which explains Norway whose fjords give it a nice baroque feeling. But fjords don't work so well now that he's been assigned Africa.Edited by dwise1, : qses

Faith! Asgara just obliged you by offering you a valid answer to your request and you have the disrespect to respond with gibberish!Follow the Pharisee teaching: "Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself!" You don't want to be treated with disrespect? Well then don't do it to others!

The fact that she's an australopithecine. Perhaps you could point us to a genus which you think is always perfectly preserved. I don't see why. Also, practically all fossils are found at the top of the strata, where we live. The term you want (but cannot use for religious reasons) is not "higher" but "later".So this aside let's look at a dinosaur species. According to WP, more than 50 specimens of T. rex have been discovered, of which the most complete is the specimen known as "Sue", which is 73% complete. This figure falls off quite rapidly: "Black Beauty", the 14th most complete specimen, is only 28% complete.Specimens of Tyrannosaurus - Wikipedia

First, that is a flat-out lie! Asgara did suggest a third alternative (Message 492).Second, there are literally thousands of alternatives despite your trying to hide that fact with your "Two Model Approach" false dichotomy. After bundling all the non-YEC alternative into the "atheistic" "evolution model", including the very highly theistic ones, "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern" (Dr. Henry Morris, ICR), you try to create the deception that poking a few pin-pricks into one or two of those thousands of alternatives would invalidate the entire "evolution model" thus leaving your YEC "creation model" as the "only other alternative." That is false and a deception, even when you yourself of one of the people being deceived by it.By the most simple Boolean Algebra, if a model M has n components, A₁ through A_n such that
M = A₁ OR A₂ OR ... OR A_n
then M is true if any single one of its components is true. So when would M be false? If and only if all of its components are false. If even just one of those n components is true, then M is true. In other words, the only way you can prove M to be false is to prove that each and every single one of its components, A₁ through A_n, is false.That is what you are trying to do, "prove" your "creation model" by proving your "evolution model" to be false. In order to do that, you must prove every single model in the "evolution model" to be false. Including all the religious myths which make up the vast majority of the "evolution model", every single one of them. And including all the crazy ideas which are completely divorced from reality that you have concocted here. Including the ideas that we have not yet discovered.Since all that is an impossible task, the logical alternative should be for you to find and present evidence that supports your "theory". Which it so happens you also cannot do, since none has been found to exist. But you do still need to make an honest to find such evidence.{ABE: For those lurkers with a background in Boolean Algebra, I used "OR" instead of the standard "+" in an attempt to prevent Faith's mania for becoming confused. I also avoided De Morgan's Theorem for the same reason:

quote:

---

if
M = A₁ OR A₂ OR ... OR A_n
then
NOT(M) = NOT(A₁) AND NOT(A₂) AND ... AND NOT(A_n)
meaning that NOT(M) is only true if all the variables are false, and NOT(M) being true means that M is false.

---

}Edited by dwise1, : "prove and every single one" -> "prove that each and every single one"Edited by dwise1, : ABE