|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Woopsy, changing the subject again. No idea what theory could replace the Geo Timescale of course. Because there isn't one. Only the Flood. 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: Again, have you finally realized that your topic really is unsupportable, false, futile, absurd and jess plain silly?My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Yawn. Here you are disagreeing with Romans 13 Message 303
Although since this is off-topic we can take it to another thread. We can certainly talk about Isaiah 7 and Daniel 8, too.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Please explain how accumulated dust gets sorted into a particular sediment such as sand or clay or calcareous ooze, which characterize most of the rocks in the strata.
Change from dust to sand to loess, etc., etc.
Then please explain how it forms a nice flat layer that becomes a rock in the strata that extends for large distances
It doesn't because it is subaerial. We've been over this before.
You can account for the burying of a village this way but not for the formation of the strata.
Villages are on the land surface. Your 'strata' are marine formations. This is getting tedious, Faith.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1734 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The river flood story is pathetic.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Yeah yeah yeah. No the Flood has never been disproved and the efforts are mostly pathetically inadequate notions of what it would have done and what evidence it would have left. Any time you want another try at reconciling the fossil record with the Flood myth, feel free.
But if you want to say the Flood couldn't explain the phenomena of the Geo Timetscale if that is thoroughly discredited, then how about offering another theory instead? Ooh, how about ... real geology? You can learn about this here. Over a hundred thousand words of exposition, none of which are "flooddidit".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14174dm Member (Idle past 1136 days) Posts: 161 From: Cincinnati OH Joined:
|
My reply to you was to show that most fossils found are missing some to almost all the bones. In message 436 you claimed
As you are describing it this all happens way too slowly for the creatures to be buried and fossilized. They'd have been first mangled by scavengers and then just rotted away to dust in such a time frame. One thing the Flood has over ALL the scenarios you can come up with is that it would have provided the PERFECT conditions for fossilization: rapid burial and compaction. 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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14174dm Member (Idle past 1136 days) Posts: 161 From: Cincinnati OH Joined:
|
Wrong.
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 ... 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Without information about exactly how many fossils, complete and incomplete, have been found of ALL creatures (there's an ENORMOUS number of them, as shown on the charts posted back a ways), simply saying that there aren't many complete fossils of a particular kind of dinosaur doesn't really say much. 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:
In their 1982 physical anthropology textbook, Harry Nelson and Robert Jurmain tabulate the number of specimens. For the five South African sites alone there are some 175 cranial remains, 769 teeth, and 78 postcranial (from the neck down) remains for a total collection of 1,022 items representing some 121 to 157 individuals (1982:393). Elsewhere in their text, they tally data from the East African fossil localities in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Kenyaa minimum of 475 specimens (teeth and bones) representing at least 100 to 200 individuals (1982: 430-431). 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.
One can still ask why there are any at all or as many as there are given the rarity of the conditions for fossilization to occur. The rarity of the conditions is inferred from the number of fossils ... Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Proving one wrong does not make the other right. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes:
Slartibartfast But if you want to say the Flood couldn't explain the phenomena of the Geo Timetscale if that is thoroughly discredited, then how about offering another theory instead? Edited by dwise1, : qses
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Asgara writes: Smootiburksnilge Faith writes:
Slartibartfast But if you want to say the Flood couldn't explain the phenomena of the Geo Timetscale if that is thoroughly discredited, then how about offering another theory instead? 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!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What makes "Lucy" anything but a human being anyway? The fact that she's an australopithecine.
And I always thought there was a paucity of evidence for homo sapiens anyway. Perhaps you could point us to a genus which you think is always perfectly preserved.
The higher in the strata the less evidence perhaps? 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
and I'm waiting for someone to suggest a third alternative. So far no show.
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 An such thatM = A1 OR A2 OR ... OR An 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 An, 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:} Edited by dwise1, : "prove and every single one" -> "prove that each and every single one" Edited by dwise1, : ABE{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML) Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles) Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32) It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.Steven Colbert on NPR
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024