Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 71 (9015 total)
45 online now:
nwr (1 member, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,114 Year: 13,862/23,288 Month: 54/326 Week: 74/92 Day: 24/3 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1366 of 1385 (866649)
11-14-2019 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1365 by RAZD
11-13-2019 9:37 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
the problem is that the genetics isn't studied in order to check out what I'm saying. My theory goes **** this: A species has only certain genetic stuff and even if mutations change things they can't change it to something outside what the genetic stuff does: even the most drastic mutations don't change the parts of a fruit fly, they just rearrange them. They don't create some other kind of creature or even a part of some other kind of creature. The enormous number of generations of e coli in Lensky's experiments never even suggested anything other than a version of e coli. The genetic stuff of each species appears to be built into its genome. Evolution, mutations, can rearrange it but can't make something new out of it.

Normal microevolution brings out new versions of the traits that are built into the genome. It's always the same creature but it may be bigger or smaller or have dramatically different coloring or markings, some modification of the basic structure but without ever changing beyond what is clearly defined as that particular species. All these differences are built into the genome. There are many genes for some traits **** fur coloring and so on, and whatever there are genes for is all the change you can possibly get. So no, all **** is NOT related, simply genetically can't be.

And there is nothing **** trial and error in all of this either, though trial and error would be needed to get from one species to another because basic structures have to change, which doesn't happen in normal microevolution.

AND, you'll never recognize it I guess, but I'm very sure that as a species changes in a certain genetic direction it will eventually run out of genetic diversity and be unable to change any further. Which basically means the defining characteristics will all be homozygous, all fixed loci, which is what we see in drastically bottlenecked species **** the cheetah and elephant seal. And once the majority of their characteristics are fixed loci they cannot evolve any further. Presumably a mutation might come along and allow for it but that doesn't seem to happen. If they can be bred with other cats or seals then they can survive, but they won't be the same animal. Something **** this genetlcally depleted condition must be what happens in breeding programs -- a "purebred" is defined as having fixed loci for its main characteristics. It doesn't vary from generation to generation as species with high genetic diversity do. Evolution has a natural end point in other words, you can't get anything new at all, not even a variation on the breed, let alone something toward an entirely new species.

Trilobites are OBVIOUSLY the same species, humans and apes are not.

This is not the OP topic unfortunately.
AbE: OR, did you actually mean to identify a useful application of evolutionjary theory that I missed? And if so could you condense it down to a brief statement so I can get what you had in mind?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1365 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2019 9:37 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1367 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2019 9:06 AM Faith has responded
 Message 1371 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2019 1:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1367 of 1385 (866658)
11-14-2019 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1366 by Faith
11-14-2019 4:05 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
the problem is that the genetics isn't studied in order to check out what I'm saying. My theory goes like this: A species has only certain genetic stuff and even if mutations change things they can't change it to something outside what the genetic stuff does: even the most drastic mutations don't change the parts of a fruit fly, they just rearrange them. They don't create some other kind of creature or even a part of some other kind of creature. The enormous number of generations of e coli in Lensky's experiments never even suggested anything other than a version of e coli. The genetic stuff of each species appears to be built into its genome. Evolution, mutations, can rearrange it but can't make something new out of it.

It doesn't have to be. The genetics as studied show this concept to be contradicted. We see mutations in the genome carried to descendants who are different, we see common ancestry in specific traits from one lineage to the next, and we see this pattern extending into the past back to a universal common ancestor.

That is how the DNA tree of life is built. Common ancestry is a prediction of the ToE. This evidence confirms it, thus showing that the ToE is the best known explanation for the natural history of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

Normal microevolution brings out new versions of the traits that are built into the genome. It's always the same creature but it may be bigger or smaller or have dramatically different coloring or markings, some modification of the basic structure but without ever changing beyond what is clearly defined as that particular species. All these differences are built into the genome. There are many genes for some traits like fur coloring and so on, and whatever there are genes for is all the change you can possibly get. So no, all life is NOT related, simply genetically can't be.

The evidence says otherwise. The actual evidence show that "new versions of the traits" are due to mutations, and that there is nothing that limits mutations from occurring.

And there is nothing like trial and error in all of this either, though trial and error would be needed to get from one species to another because basic structures have to change, which doesn't happen in normal microevolution.

And again you are wrong. All evolution is trial and error: mutation (trial) selection (error) try again:

The "basic structure" changes is little steps, such as the changes in size, location and connectivity of the ear bones and jaw bones in the evolution of mammals from reptilian ancestors. There are many intermediate fossils found in this transition of "basic structure" and they are all fixed in the spatial/temporal matrix in the times and locations expected.

You will deny this of course, because it contradicts your ideology.

AND, you'll never recognize it I guess, but I'm very sure that as a species changes in a certain genetic direction it will eventually run out of genetic diversity and be unable to change any further. ...

Correct, I'll never recognize it, but that's because it hasn't happened yet. There is no barrier to change via mutations that has yet been discovered. What we do see is new genetic material occurring via mutations such that daughter species are just as robust in genetic variation as the parent population and that they differ from sister populations by having different sets of new mutations, genetic material that is absent in the parent population.

... Which basically means the defining characteristics will all be homozygous, all fixed loci, which is what we see in drastically bottlenecked species like the cheetah and elephant seal. And once the majority of their characteristics are fixed loci they cannot evolve any further. Presumably a mutation might come along and allow for it but that doesn't seem to happen. If they can be bred with other cats or seals then they can survive, but they won't be the same animal. Something like this genetlcally depleted condition must be what happens in breeding programs -- a "purebred" is defined as having fixed loci for its main characteristics. It doesn't vary from generation to generation as species with high genetic diversity do. Evolution has a natural end point in other words, you can't get anything new at all, not even a variation on the breed, let alone something toward an entirely new species.

Ideological rambling based on a falsified premise not worth addressing.

Trilobites are OBVIOUSLY the same species, humans and apes are not.

Again you choose to assert your ideology rather than look at the facts.

You can't handle the truth.

This is not the OP topic unfortunately.
AbE: OR, did you actually mean to identify a useful application of evolutionjary theory that I missed? And if so could you condense it down to a brief statement so I can get what you had in mind?

The common ancestry of traits as documented in the fossil temporal/spacial matrix shows evolution occurs, has occurred, and that there is no barrier to it continuing to occur. Common ancestry requires proximity in time and location for each breeding generation of species as a test prediction of evolution theory. The evidence confirms that the ToE is the best known explanation for the natural history of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1366 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 4:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1368 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 9:17 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 1369 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 9:31 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1368 of 1385 (866661)
11-14-2019 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1367 by RAZD
11-14-2019 9:06 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
What you call "evidence," ************ in relation to the fossil record, is really just interpretation that can't be verified, in other words it's just the Evo fantasy.

And by the way you have shown no useful application whatever.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1367 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2019 9:06 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1370 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2019 9:43 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1372 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-29-2019 9:20 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1369 of 1385 (866662)
11-14-2019 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1367 by RAZD
11-14-2019 9:06 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Just **** everybody else here you love to tit for tat. So you use my term "ideology" absolutely incorrectly, you have no idea how I use it or that it doesn't belong in your post.

However, I just want to comment on another thing you got wrong, wshich rally amounts to a straw man. I never said that a single generation would lead to the inability to evolve further, I said "eventually," meaning after a number of such generations, and to be more precise, a number of reproductively isolated genreations **** ring specieds. But I don't expect you to get anything I say so I'm not even talking to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1367 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2019 9:06 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1370 of 1385 (866665)
11-14-2019 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1368 by Faith
11-14-2019 9:17 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
What you call "evidence," particularly in relation to the fossil record, is really just interpretation that can't be verified, in other words it's just the Evo fantasy.

And by the way you have shown no useful application whatever.

More proof that you can't handle the truth.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1368 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 9:17 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16637
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 1371 of 1385 (866681)
11-14-2019 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1366 by Faith
11-14-2019 4:05 AM


Genes and more
quote:
the problem is that the genetics isn't studied in order to check out what I'm saying.

Genetics isn’t studied for that purpose, no. But that isn’t a problem. Genetics is studied to understand genes and that understanding shows serious problems with your ideas.

Mendelian genetics was a theoretical model which works well enough for breeding. But it has no understanding of actual genes or what they really do or how genes relate to traits. By making speculations based on Mendelian genetics and ignoring what real genes are and do you are just heading off into fantasyland.

quote:
A species has only certain genetic stuff and even if mutations change things they can't change it to something outside what the genetic stuff does: even the most drastic mutations don't change the parts of a fruit fly, they just rearrange them

Which, of course is in line with evolutionary theory. But those changes are not changes in genes, they are changes to regulatory sequences. So instead of triggering the building of an antenna, a leg might be built instead.

But genes code for proteins and proteins can have multiple uses. Genes can even code for more than one protein via Alternative Splicing. The idea that the gene does one thing and one thing only is known to be wrong. A protein may be a blood clotting agent and a venom, a structural element and an enzyme.

quote:
Normal microevolution brings out new versions of the traits that are built into the genome. It's always the same creature but it may be bigger or smaller or have dramatically different coloring or markings, some modification of the basic structure but without ever changing beyond what is clearly defined as that particular species. All these differences are built into the genome. There are many genes for some traits like fur coloring and so on, and whatever there are genes for is all the change you can possibly get. So no, all life is NOT related, simply genetically can't be.

As we know regulatory changes can bring about significant variations. Add to this the fact that genes may be lost and gained - and the clear genetic similarities and we see that your claims are purely assumptions. It is entirely possible for your assumptions to be wrong - especially when we know that your ideas about “what genes do” ARE wrong.

quote:
AND, you'll never recognize it I guess, but I'm very sure that as a species changes in a certain genetic direction it will eventually run out of genetic diversity and be unable to change any further.

No, you’ll never recognise that you are wrong, although it has been shown again and again. All you have is a bad theoretical argument, which doesn’t even stand up on that level, let alone the evidence.

quote:
Trilobites are OBVIOUSLY the same species, humans and apes are not.

Trilobites are OBVIOUSLY more diverse than the apes (including humans). There is no consistent standard by which you can say that trilobites are one species but humans are a different species from the other apes. We know, it has been argued in this forum. In reality trilobites are classed as an Order while the apes are classed as a superfamily - a lower taxonomic level. And that is because of the relative diversity (and quite likely biased in favour of the apes).

This catalogue of errors is hardly a convincing argument.

Edited by PaulK, : Changed title


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1366 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 4:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1372 of 1385 (869404)
12-29-2019 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1368 by Faith
11-14-2019 9:17 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
But one could say, about any historical topic, that it's just an "interpretation" since we cannot travel back in time to "witness" it.

On the other hand, you can't "see" an electron, nor "observe" the molten core of the Earth. But we may still learn a great deal about such things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1368 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 9:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1373 by Faith, posted 12-29-2019 10:17 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1373 of 1385 (869405)
12-29-2019 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1372 by Sarah Bellum
12-29-2019 9:20 PM


The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past
With history we often have docments by different sources we can check out, and we may also have documents about those sources, at least references IN documents, so we DO have witnesses to history. We DON'T have any kind of witness at all of prehistoric geological events. Unless you want to count Noah and those to whom he told the story of the Flood, or Gilgamesh for that matter, and I would count them myself, but as for purely science-based theories, nada, it's ALL nothing but interpretation with no way to test it.

Electrons and other atomic phenomena, and the motion of the earth, have measurable effects in many other phenomena IN THE PRESENT that can be used to study them. Again, this is a different situation from geological phenomena that occurred in the unwitnessed/prehistoric past. I personally think there's plenty of evidence of the Flood in the strata and the fossils and other phenomena I've spent a fair amount of time talking about here but I can't prove that either.

Nice to see you back, you've been gone quite a while.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1372 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-29-2019 9:20 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1374 by PaulK, posted 12-30-2019 3:11 AM Faith has responded
 Message 1379 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-30-2019 10:12 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16637
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 1374 of 1385 (869406)
12-30-2019 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1373 by Faith
12-29-2019 10:17 PM


Re: The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past
quote:
With history we often have docments by different sources we can check out, and we may also have documents about those sources, at least references IN documents, so we DO have witnesses to history. We DON'T have any kind of witness at all of prehistoric geological events.

Let us note - again - that forensic evidence is often more reliable than witness evidence. We do have the evidence left by events, and that evidence shows that your Flood geology is nonsense. That’s why you keep trying to ignore it or explain it away. Sometimes making up ridiculous falsehoods.

quote:
We DON'T have any kind of witness at all of prehistoric geological events. Unless you want to count Noah and those to whom he told the story of the Flood, or Gilgamesh for that matter, and I would count them myself...

Since you can’t trace the stories we have back to Noah or anyone who knew him this amounts to classing myths and legends and folktales as “witness evidence”.

quote:
...but as for purely science-based theories, nada, it's ALL nothing but interpretation with no way to test it.

On the contrary there is plenty of testing that can be done - and has been done. That’s just one more thing you want to cover up. Dating methods can be tested against items of known date. They can be tested against each other - cinsilience can be powerful evidence. We can see what observed processes produce - we can see which sediments are being deposited now, we can look at sand dunes, and rivers and examine the sand grains and pebbles. You’ve even pointed to Berthold’s flume experiments. This is how geology’s interpretation of the past has been and still is being refined.

quote:
Electrons and other atomic phenomena, and the motion of the earth, have measurable effects in many other phenomena IN THE PRESENT that can be used to study them. Again, this is a different situation from geological phenomena that occurred in the unwitnessed/prehistoric past

In fact it is very similar. Events are inferred from the traces they leave. Witnesses don’t change that. In fact all sensory evidence is the same - marvellous as the human senses are, they are limited, imperfect and indirect. A surprising amount of what you “see” is inferred by the brain.

quote:
personally think there's plenty of evidence of the Flood in the strata and the fossils and other phenomena I've spent a fair amount of time talking about here but I can't prove that either.

You can’t prove it because it isn’t true. I can’t believe that you don’t know that by now. You have to know that you are trying to suppress the evidence that proved you wrong. You have to know that your calls for “honesty” aren’t any such thing.

Let us consider your argument that fossils are evidence for the Flood,

You assert that the fossils are the remains of many dead things, the Flood was supposed to kill almost everything, therefore the fossils are evidence for the Flood.

Obviously this is very weak evidence. And in fact this evidence is just as consistent with mainstream views, To get better evidence we’d have to look a little deeper at the evidence. But you refuse to do that because your argument falls apart.

For instance, the Flood was supposed to kill land life (indeed, land animals - the account even suggests that some trees survived). Yet the fossil record is predominantly of aquatic life. (Which, curiously enough we should expect if the mainstream view were correct)

There is a strong order to the fossil record. This can’t be explained by the Flood. I know you call it an “illusion” but that makes no sense at all. Do you really imagine that fossils only appear to be in the rock they are found in, and are “really” in completely different rock?

Even the numbers of fossils are implausibly high for the Flood.

There is more, but the claim that you have good evidence is clearly false. Your Flood geology is an obvious untruth. That is why you try to disparage the evidence - it’s just another attempt to get away from that truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1373 by Faith, posted 12-29-2019 10:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1375 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 8:35 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1375 of 1385 (869409)
12-30-2019 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1374 by PaulK
12-30-2019 3:11 AM


Re: The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past
Let it be noted again that forensic evidence has information from the present to work with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1374 by PaulK, posted 12-30-2019 3:11 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1376 by PaulK, posted 12-30-2019 8:42 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1377 by jar, posted 12-30-2019 9:31 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16637
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 1376 of 1385 (869410)
12-30-2019 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1375 by Faith
12-30-2019 8:35 AM


Re: The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past
quote:
Let it be noted again that forensic evidence has information from the present to work with

Which is not a difference, as I pointed out. Geologists observe processes in the present day, see the results and use those results to interpret the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1375 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 8:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1378 by RAZD, posted 12-30-2019 9:47 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33027
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1377 of 1385 (869411)
12-30-2019 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1375 by Faith
12-30-2019 8:35 AM


The witnessed (prehistoric) past
In addition Faith, there is a place where we can actually observe the past in pretty great detail and over a range of millions and billions of years and that is through astronomy. We can see the same processes that are happening today happening at different time periods across a span of billions of years.

Remember, changes do leave evidence and that evidence is also available over a somewhat shorter time span of only a few billion years here on the Earth and you have been presented with that evidence numerous times here at EvC. One great example is the Oklo reactor. We can see the waste products and compare those to what is produced in modern reactors. Another example is air trapped in bubbles in ice cores. We can actually test that are to compare it with the air today. We have fossilized rain drops that we can compare to the pattern made by rain drops today.

The (prehistoric) past is NOT unwitnessed since all change leaves evidence. And those who have eyes can see.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1375 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 8:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1378 of 1385 (869412)
12-30-2019 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1376 by PaulK
12-30-2019 8:42 AM


The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past through the looking glass
Moved to Message 1515, Did the Flood really happen?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel•American•Zen•Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1376 by PaulK, posted 12-30-2019 8:42 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1379 of 1385 (869413)
12-30-2019 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1373 by Faith
12-29-2019 10:17 PM


Re: The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past
That is the point, isn't it? There are no "witnesses" to such things as beta decay or the Mohorovičić Discontinuity. There are only "measurable effects in many other phenomena in the present". I described such effects in my original post
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=855972#m855972

Some things cannot be "witnessed" directly because they are too small (quarks) or too far away (pulsars) or are blocked from our view (the core of the Earth) or happened in the past (the Yellowstone eruption) or are invisible (radio waves) or happen too quickly (beta decay) or are otherwise not directly in our range of sight (or hearing, taste, touch or smell). That doesn't mean we cannot learn about those things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1373 by Faith, posted 12-29-2019 10:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1380 by Faith, posted 12-30-2019 10:41 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 144 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1380 of 1385 (869416)
12-30-2019 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1379 by Sarah Bellum
12-30-2019 10:12 AM


Re: The unwitnessed (prehistoric) past
Yes, sorry I don't get everything said that needs to be said in one post, and I forget things I've said years ago. Whatever. The thing about the geological phenomena is that most of it is one time events that occurred in the Prehistoric past -- I sometimes say "historical" but that implies there are records available when I'm tryhing to talk about a past for which there are no records of any kind, which after all would be "witnesses." But I also don't want to rest any of this specifically on witnesses either because there are sciences that rely on indirect information, whichis what I was referring to about atomic phenomena and the mostion of the Earth and so on. There is no direct witnessing but there are measuruable AND REPEATABLE effects that can be used to study them. REPEATABLE is another important concept. The prehistoric geological past is about ONE TIME events, Unwitnessed in any sense of that word, and UNREPEATABLE. And for all I know I'm leaving out other criteria.

It's not that we can't know SOME things about that past, such as that fossils were once living creatures -- but that was not known to those who originally studied them as they came up with all sorts of outlandish ideas about them because they didn't have anything to compare them too. That's the ONE-TIME-EVENT phenomenon. Even that can be resolved as it was in the case of the fossils by a more reasonable interpretation.

But as for explaining the causes of the strata and the fossils, that's where we are getting into territory I'm arguing isn't so easily knowable, because of course I'm objecting to the standard interprreation of it which I consider to be … let's say irrational? Time periods attached to slabs of rock by dating methods that don't even date the rocks themselves. Slabs of rock that couldn't ever possibly form from a landscape in a time period anyway. Fossils that form under rare conditions occurring in amazing abundance in these rocks, and sorted BY the rocks too. That's supposedly evidence of the time periods interpretation but once you see that a rock can't represent a time period the whole idea comes crashing down. And so on.

But really this discussion ought to be on the Flood thread anyway.

But


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1379 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-30-2019 10:12 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1381 by PaulK, posted 12-30-2019 11:08 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1382 by Sarah Bellum, posted 12-30-2019 11:08 AM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020