|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: If you can't show any actual relatedness of the fossils in the supposed order, the order remains a mere mental construct and not a physical reality. That has been your answer for every example that has been raised. BUT... we have known principles of physical sorting that account for what is seen in the geology, the biology, the radiometric evidence, the isotope evidence, the physical positioning and that are observable and happening today. This is the difference Faith. We have the fossils and societies and geology and radiometric samples and isotope samples and the model, method, mechanism, process and procedures that explain the evidence. We can show the relatedness and there are museums all over the world where the relatedness is shown. All you have is the dogma of your Cult. Young Earth is simply utter willful dishonesty. Creationism is simply utter willful dishonesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Pollux hasn't replied to this, so I will.
Faith writes: Faith, please use the word "species " correctly.
Perhaps the Phyllum is the Kind and that's what the creationist was talking about. For me to say what I mean may require that I NOT use the terms "correctly" according to your paradigm. First, it is not a case of two different paradigms. It is a case of science representing knowledge and creationists misrepresenting religion as science. Second, kind is not a scientific term, at least not within biology. Third, species has a very clear definition for sexual organisms, which is what we're usually talking about. You cannot invent your own definition.
Being able to interbreed is a criterion for defining a species from the OE/Evo paradigm, which is meaningless when defining a Kind. But you just said the opposite in your Message 1812:
Faith in Message 1812 writes: "Kind" means species in the sense I'm using the term above. The words are synonymous,... So in one message you say that kind and species are synonymous, then just a very few messages later you say that species is meaningless with regard to kind. Contradictory much? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: There are lots of Christians in name only. That seems to describe you pretty well. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: I not only have to learn the standard interpretation of everything... You often do a pretty fair job understanding scientific terminology (mainly the labels for things, like "strata" and "intrusion", but not terms representing more complex concepts, like "Walther's Law"). Unfortunately you have a bad habit of inventing your own personal definitions for some terms, as you just said you'd do with species. But even after all these years you understand very little of evolutionary and geological processes, even extremely simple concepts like that sediments being deposited today contribute to stratigraphic columns, or that mutations contribute to variation. Though such processes been explained again and again, the explanations never stick, and you reject them before ever understanding them.
...I have to be able to see how it contradicts the true history of the earth. If you don't understand them or their supporting evidence then you can't assess how they are right or wrong. You're sort of reduced to calling them names like "illusion" and "paradigm". --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fill out first paragraph so it's a bit more clear - it became two paragraphs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Obviously you don't appreciate the problems involved in a paradigm clash for the underdog paradigm. Definitional problems are a huge problem because facts don't have the same interpretation in the different paradigms.
YEC's biological model has separate created Kinds that have a lot of variation built into the genome but can't change beyond the genome. That creates all kinds of semantic and definitional problems in relation to the ToE model of evolution from Species to Species. YEC also views the Earth as only 6000 years old, and explaining all the facts that standard Geology interprets in terms of millions and billions of years sometimes requires different terminology. There is no way to use all the ToE and OE terminology to discuss YEC principles. You don't recognize that the terms you use are interpretive, you think they are simply factual but you are wrong and that creates confusion and havoc for anybody defending YEC. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's a matter of doctrine as I meant it. Like a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness claiming to be a Christian. Their doctrine is wrong according to traditional historical Christian theology.
If you just want to call me a bad Christian I will agree with you about that, but probably not about some of your criteria. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is static order, like objects arranged in a row according to size, which is the kind the fossil order is. But you think the fossil order implies something dynamic as well, evolution from one form of life to another over time. There is little argument with the first kind of order; it's clear that fossils are found in a predictable order from layer to layer, using the term "order" in the static sense, although there isn't any obvious characteristic like size that links them, or complexity or whatever you think is implied. But when it comes to the interpretation of evolution from life form to life form over time that is not proven and nobody here is saying anything that proves it exists at all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
Faith writes: it's clear that fossils are found in a predictable order from layer to layer, You have used this phrase several times recently. What do you mean by predictable? Who or what is predicting this order? What features of fossils are ordered using your predictable ordering?
Faith writes: although there isn't any obvious characteristic like size that links them, or complexity or whatever you think is implied. Ok, what are you talking about being predictably ordered? By the way, I recently read a really informative book about Trilobites, but you wouldn't enjoy it. EnjoyWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Tanypteryx to Faith's Message 2002:
What features of fossils are ordered using your predictable ordering? Faith already told you that in the message you're replying to:
Faith writes: There is static order, like objects arranged in a row according to size, which is the kind the fossil order is. So she is stating that they are ordered by size. That would be the expected result of hydrodynamic sorting. For example, here is part of my notes on that creationist movie on Netflix, "Is Genesis History?" (starts with the timemark into the movie):
quote:0:50 -- Arthur Chadwick, paleontologist So two of the basic questions for Faith would be (in which "you" and "your" refer to Faith):
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
What features of fossils are ordered using your predictable ordering? Fossils are predictably ordered according to random and inexplicable physical features depending on the specific circumstances and the currently unknown properties of water acting through an indescribable sequence of improbable events. Duh... HBD Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All I meant about predictable order is that the same fossils are found in the same layer everywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Arrangement according to size -- like jars on a shelf arranged from large to small, or shirts on a rack from large to small -- was meant to be an example of a static order, shape would be another, I suppose, or having two, four, six, eight eyeballs in a series could be another. The fossil order supposedly reflects the Linnaean morphological classification.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: The fossil order supposedly reflects the Linnaean morphological classification. And what is the model, method, mechanism, process, procedure for a flood to sort objects to reflect the Linnaean morphological classification?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I doubt the fossil order reflects much of the Linnaean system in reality. I do keep invoking some unknown principle of sorting by the Flood because I don't think we can know what it is, though I think it certainly at least had to involve marine creatures at the lower levels, progressing up to land animals on the higher levels.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
You need to take much more care to make your posts very clear. As it is, it looks like you're weasel-wording all the time. IOW, if you made yourself more understandable, you wouldn't have to complain so much about being misunderstood. Or would that be counter-productive for your goals here?
So just how would your magic flood sort by number of eyeballs? Or by any other trait? Since you don't know how water works, nor physics, nor geological processes, and you refuse to try to learn, you end up having nothing. How could you ever expect yourself to replace that big nothing with a something? Why would you expect to be able to convince anybody by presenting nothing but your big nothing, the product of your willful and self-imposed ignorance? We're not trying to make you give up, but rather we're trying to get you to stop wasting your time in dead-ends. And to get you to stop completely discrediting your own religion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024