Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(4)
Message 1 of 409 (678430)
11-07-2012 9:07 PM


Just browsing through my facebook, when I came across an interesting article from Dr. Donald Prothero, Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, here, about a reality show called Conspiracy Road Trip. In it, he describes being invited by a BBC television producer and narrarator Andrew Maxwell to provide evidence of evolution to five religious creationist layman on a cross-country road trip in the US as part of a reality tv series.
I watched the entire one hr segment and found it both entertaining and enlightening. As a former Bible-thumper myself and current deist leaning universalist, I found it interesting how closed-minded these people were and how quickly they blinded and deafened themselves to the evidence presented to them (the tv segment I honestly think does a poor job showing how much evidence there really is supporting evolution). There was only one person, JoJo, who was totally honest with herself and willing to listen to the evidence.
Just curious if any of you had watched this and if so what are your thoughts on the psychology of creationists and is it possible that people like the belligerent Phil, could ever change their mind. What would it take to change the mind of an ardent creationist if anything. Your thoughts?
{BY Adminnemooseus - The link is not working for me. DA tells me by PM that it is here}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : BY Adminnemooseus

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 11-08-2012 1:34 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 11-08-2012 2:22 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 12 by tesla, posted 11-08-2012 9:16 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 11-13-2012 2:34 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 10:07 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 9 of 409 (678523)
11-08-2012 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
11-08-2012 1:34 PM


Percy,
I like your analysis of the episode. I agree that Phil is very much a bully and a jerk. I find interesting his projection of his own antagonistic, bullying behavior onto the director at 36:20 in the video.
If you think that Phil is just a misguided bible thumper you are wrong. In actuality he is the chairman of a prominent creationism organization in Northern Ireland as shown here: Creation Evangelism » Creation Outreach Ministries . I guess you could say he is the Ken Ham of Northern Ireland. It shows in the video he is a complete ignoramus on even basic science even though holds a Bachelors and Master’s degree. I believe somewhere it mentioned that he a glorified PT teacher. It shows how immersed in the video how immersed he is in this ridiculous world view and how much he wants to drag everyone down into it.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 11-08-2012 1:34 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 10 of 409 (678524)
11-08-2012 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Stile
11-08-2012 3:06 PM


Re: One Day
In a mere 50, 75... maybe 100 years from now... I think the world will be dominated by people who are open to taking in and analyzing new information in a way that the social world has never seen before. Evidence driven decision making will become "normal social etiquette." Can you imagine the governmental system if it was dominated by evidence-driven decision making? It really makes me wish I could live for 300 years just to see what happens...
I hope it doesn't take that long. The one thing about the internet though is that it also provides a larger platform and megaphone for the quacks to spread their nonsense. It works both ways unfortunately. The question is whose voice will be more influental and which worldview will people more readily be attracted to and adopt.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Stile, posted 11-08-2012 3:06 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Stile, posted 11-09-2012 9:11 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 13 of 409 (678531)
11-08-2012 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bolder-dash
11-08-2012 9:05 PM


Re: march in step ye good scientists
Well, this is pretty typical mainstream science and pop communities habit of revealing only the message they want to reveal. Here's what they did, they took a group of the most extreme kind of believers, people who believe in Noah's ark, or only in the extreme literalism of the bible, and the BBC decided that if they could win the argument over Noah's ark, then see, haven't we done a great job of dismissing creationism.
The narrator even points out that in America at least 50% of the population believes in some form of creationism-but of course we have only included people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, because that is really the only way the evolutionists camp can argue their points and act superior in authority. Why was the BBC so chicken to not allow scientifically educated intelligent design proponents along?
Probably because there are so few people out there that could intelligently talk about 'intelligent design'. However, they did invite Phillip Robinson, a chairman for the Northern Ireland 'Creation Outreach Ministries'. Surely he would know something about intelligent design.
However, the reality show is about extremist views. As much as I disagree with the methodology of intelligent design pushers like Dembski and Michael Behe, discussing the 'intelligent design' is probably not as entertaining as playing whack-it-mole with hard and true, literal seven day, 4000 year old Young Earthers. Besides, the average Christian out there has a very poor understanding of the tenants of 'intelligent design' and the pseudoscientific propaganda that it peddles.
The show is a reality show not a Nova documentary.
The answer is simple, because the easy target is to take the most extreme believers, ridicule them, and then claim you have actually shown something valid in the evolutionists-creationist debate.
I think the show was more of a psychological journey into the mind of Young Earthers than anything else. I don't think anyone including the director and producer were expecting a conversion of Young Earth Creationists into evolution believing 'Darwinists'.
There are 1000 questions that Jerry Coyne deserves to be asked by the BBC; like explain why the neo-Darwinian concepts like point mutations on single genes leading to a slow build-up of new phenotypes could have ever created a fast switching epigenetic system of life development, which is what recent scientific developments have shown, rather than the one gene equals one trait concept they preached for so many years? Or why hasn't science been able to show the evolution of bacteria into other life forms, even though they have studied billions upon billions of generations?
Again, it is a reality show not a science documentary.
So why didn't the BBC take a more honest approach the the full scientific debate, instead of just looking at religious fundamentalism, and then pretending that is a debate on evolution?
They were pitting these dyed-in-the-wool creationists against scientists and authorities in their fields of expertise to see if they can help bring some amount of logic and reason into these creationists world view. It was not about having a debate between experts in creationism and experts in evolution. That has been done ad nauseam.
I would say the answer to that is the same reason this site exists, because you can debate an extreme position, thus protecting yourself from answering the tough questions. Its how the science community has been hijacking and censoring the truth for decades. Pure propaganda handbook nonsense
Bullshit. Hard questions and intelligent answers have been asked and answered over and over on this site. Stop being ignorant.
Pretty sophomoric stuff from a place like the BBC if you ask me.
Again, you missed the entire jest of the show. It wasn't about debating the evidence for creationism vs. evolution; it was about whether these peoples world views held water or was it purely a religious house of cards.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-08-2012 9:05 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-08-2012 9:43 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 18 of 409 (678540)
11-08-2012 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Bolder-dash
11-08-2012 9:43 PM


Re: march in step ye good scientists
You say you want a science debate, when in fact what you really want is an anti-religion debate.
Not anti-religion. Anti-religious extremism and the adoption of beliefs which hold have no grasp on reality i.e. dinosaurs and humans cohabiting.
I am actually a church going person, though a rather liberal one at that. I am not anti-religious in the slightest. In fact the majority of scientists, even evolutionary biologists are religious. Your point is null and void.
So we agree on one thing, it was a reality show, not a science show.
Agreed. The point I have been making all along. No one here is stupid enough to think this was a true science debate. The point of the show is to try to get people to think about their beliefs and if they were as grounded in reality and logic as they thought they were.
One thing we don't agree on is that this site attempts to answer the hard questions. On the contrary, it does its mightiest to slither away from them. Where's the devil in your advocacy?
Really? I see most of the slithering coming from the Creationists on the site who twist and squirm or just abandon ship when faced with arguments they can't answer. As for the 'devils advocacy' that is for you to find out. I am more complex in my philosophy and world view than many take me for.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-08-2012 9:43 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 19 of 409 (678542)
11-08-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by foreveryoung
11-08-2012 9:39 PM


Re: One Day
They also have no where else to turn if they don't want to hear progressive, collectivist, anti-traditional american values propaganda.
Um, ok. If promoting equality and liberty for all people is anti-traditional, so be it. Can you put money where your mouth is and tell me what progressive, collectivist, anti-traditionalism means?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by foreveryoung, posted 11-08-2012 9:39 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Theodoric, posted 11-08-2012 10:29 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 22 by foreveryoung, posted 11-08-2012 10:52 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(4)
(1)
Message 25 of 409 (678550)
11-08-2012 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by foreveryoung
11-08-2012 10:52 PM


Re: One Day
Yea, except they still tried their hardest to couch it as a show about the validity of evolution, instead of one about religious extremism. This is what your side often does, it says it wants to discuss the validity of evolution, but in reality most of the objections to the objections of evolution are about a fear or loathing of religion.
Biological evolution is just one piece of the puzzle. The TV producer brought in evidence for biological evolution, old-earth geology, etc. I agree that this show was a poor pittance for showing the breadth of evidence for evolution. No, one hour show in any earthly way could show the mounds of evidence in support for evolution and an old earth/universe. It is impossible. Unfortunately the hours and hours of taping of scientists giving evidence was cut into small second and minute video bytes and spliced into a reality TV show. Clearly not the vehicle you are seeking if you want real hard-core evidence for or against a point of view. But again, that was not the purpose of this show.
foreveryoung writes:
Egalitarianism is not equality.
What is wrong with Egalitarianism?
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes:
Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect. Egalitarian doctrines tend to express the idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. So far as the Western European and Anglo-American philosophical tradition is concerned, one significant source of this thought is the Christian notion that God loves all human souls equally. Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are several different types of equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, that might be thought desirable. In modern democratic societies, the term "egalitarian" is often used to refer to a position that favors, for any of a wide array of reasons, a greater degree of equality of income and wealth across persons than currently exists.
also
Merriam-Webster Dictionary writes:
a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people
epic fail. Egalitaarianism is very much the promotion of eqaulity. And I am all for it.
foreveryoung writes:
Moral anarchy is not Liberty
There is no morality without liberty. Morality without liberty is blind obedience and slavery. Or to put it more succintly:
Thomas Jefferson writes:
"Liberty... is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both always in proportion as it is free." --Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Willard, 1789.
and
Thomas Jefferson writes:
Peace, prosperity, liberty and morals have an intimate connection." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1813
foreveryoung writes:
Collectivist means the state ultimately has the right to your property and what you can do with your life.
And who is advocating collectivism aka communism in the American government? Can you give me specific examples? Or are you going to just spew inane talking points. Last time I checked the government did not pay for my electricity, water or mortgage (well technically they do since I am in the military, but you get my point).
In fact it is the conservatives not the progressives who want to tell a woman what to do with her body, a gay man or women who they can marry, immigrants that they can't become citizens, etc, etc, etc.
An example of collectivism is the idea that communally owned farms are better than privately owned farms for the production of the nations food supply.
Farming is farming. Communal farms are extremely small in number compared to big cooperate and privately owned famrs. Furthermore, most of them are very inclusive and many do not export their crops outside their community.
Have you ever heard of a Kibbutzim? That is an Israeli communal farm, they were very successful at one time until gradually replaced by commercial farming. There are still many left, however, they are totally voluntary as opposed to those in communist states. However, communal farms in the US are rather small and of course totally voluntary. Communal farms are very good for local business but are not able to keep up with the agricultural demands of 311+ million Americans.
I live in the rural suburbia of eastern Virginia and there are several communal farms in our area. There is nothing "communist" about them. In fact, a few of these people who conduct these farms in the area I live in are staunch conservative Republicans.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by foreveryoung, posted 11-08-2012 10:52 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-09-2012 12:03 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 26 of 409 (678552)
11-09-2012 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by DevilsAdvocate
11-08-2012 11:53 PM


Re: One Day
forever young,
Some examples of voluntary communal farming in Virginia, USA:
Intentional Communities - Find, Join, & Learn about Intentional Community
Twin Oaks Intentional Community - Twin Oaks Intentional Community Home
http://www.localharvest.org/...-force-collective-farm-M42632
Frog Bottom Farm | community supported agriculture in the heart of Virginia
Some are liberal leaning, some are conservative. All voluntary. Even so there are very, very few compared with the vast numbers of private and commercial farms. Your fear-mongering is in vain.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-08-2012 11:53 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by foreveryoung, posted 11-09-2012 1:10 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(4)
Message 29 of 409 (678571)
11-09-2012 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by foreveryoung
11-09-2012 1:10 AM


Re: One Day
The key word is VOLUNTARY. I was talking about forced communal farming. What fearmongering are you talking about. I was only speaking to reality
What reality? No one in America is pushing for non-voluntary communal farming much less voluntary communal farming. Communal farming has been shown to work only on the small scale. It breaks down on the large scale i.e. the Soviet Union.
Believe me, I listen to NPR and watch PBS all the time, I have never ever seen them advocate communal farming, voluntary or non-voluntary.
Your attempt to imply that progressives are pushing for forced communal farming is unjustified and unsubstantiated. Hence, you are fear mongering.
Merrium-Webster writes:
to raise or excite alarms especially needlessly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by foreveryoung, posted 11-09-2012 1:10 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 76 of 409 (679613)
11-14-2012 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
11-13-2012 2:34 AM


Re: One Silly Misconceived Road Trip
Watched the video, boy is it a misbegotten piece of nonsense. You guys actually think it reveals anything of value?
Yes, it reveals the mindset and psychology of some creationists.
First, how can you justify the basic craziness of getting a bunch of clearly average believers together with professional scientists and think anything about the creation-evolution debate could be revealed this way? The "creationists" on the bus trip hardly know anything about creationism or the Bible either for all I can tell, or science of any sort.
Actually one of the them, Phil is the chairman of a creationist organization in Northern Ireland and has a Bachelor of Education degree from Stranmillis University College in Religious Studies. http://creation.com/phil-robinson
Clearly the whole point was to break through their belief with what they consider to be the enlightening truths of science.
No one is disputing that was one of the main purposes of the road trip, to see if they could present scientific evidence to creationists to see how they would react.
Which is the point of EvC too.
And what is wrong with that? Serious investigation of evidence, testing, discussion, deliberation, and peer review are the halmarks of scientific inquiry.
Nobody cracked a Bible that I noticed. Did I miss it?
I am sure that there were hours of video that are lying on the cutting room floor. Some of this discarded film, I imagine, showed people reading Bibles and the like.
Then there were the sad excuses for "science" that were used to "challenge" this poor sad lot of "creationists. I could hardly believe the silliness of the "experiment" the geologist did to "prove" that a Flood couldn't have cut the Grand Canyon. A bucket of water poured on a slight slope. Huh? I did a whole long post on this at my blog, but I don't feel like repeating it here yet.
I didn't really like the editing of the video, there were better examples of evidence for the evolution of the grand canyon they could have used. However, much of the evidence provided by the scientists was also left on the cutting room floor as alluded to by one of the scientists in the program, Dr. Don Prothero: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...tionist-road-trip
The film did a poor job showing much evidence for an old Earth and biological evolution in my opinion. The amount of evidence against a young Earth is astronomical and any 1 hr film exhibiting would not do it justice.
Oh and Jerry Coyne "challenged" them with the ridiculous idea of a whale being on the ark. Well, don't you see, it wouldn't fit, you couldn't HAVE a whale on the ark. Well, no you couldn't and they didn't. Sea creatures were not on the ark, why would they be? They had a planet covered with water to live in. Good grief.
I agree. I didn't really understand that line of reasoning either. However, how do you explain the extinction of dinosaurs.
And, what else. Oh yes, the dinosaurs. I never understood why it seems so improbable to some that humans could have occupied the same planet with these beasts.
There is no evidence at all that shows they lived at the same time. Dinosaurs and humans fossils have never ever been found in the same stata. No dinosaur bones are found above the Cretaceous—Paleogene (K—Pg) boundary, no human bones are found below. Radioactive dating indicates there are 60+ million years between the two. Also, dinosaur bones are are always petrified or fossil imprints (organic matter replaced by mineral) whereas human remains are very rarely petrified.
Remember, some of you guys said this video was, I think, "enlightening?" You need to get out more.
I felt it was enlightening to see how obstinant creationists are in their blind faith. However, being a former creationists, it was more "enlightening" to see how I once believed the creationist crap.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 11-13-2012 2:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:23 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 89 of 409 (679665)
11-15-2012 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
11-15-2012 12:23 AM


Re: Dinosaurs
Well, the great majority of them obviously died in the Flood, as can be seen in the many dinosaur beds where they're all jumbled together.
Yet there is an order in which these dinosaurs are found. You will not find Triassic and Jurassic dinosaurs in the same layers, just like you will not find human, horse or any modern mammel remains in the same strata as dinosaur remains.
And since I believe the strata were all laid down in the Flood I believe all the creatures whose fossils are preserved in those strata lived together before the Flood and drowned in that event, which of course includes humans and dinosaurs and the whole rest of the fossil record.
You can believe whatever you want, that does not make it factually correct.
You impute a time period to the various strata so you think that the different creatures that are found in different strata lived in different eras from each other.
How else do you have different strata with different types of sedamentary and metamorphic rock, limestone, shale, sandstone, mudstone, quartzite, shist, granite, etc. These types of rocks form by different geological processes, some of which would be impossible to explain by a 40 day worlwide cataclysmic flood.
Seems to me that if that were the case you should find practically the whole fossil record in various stages of evolution in each layer, since it's absurd to think there was a time CHARACTERIZED by the creatures that are found in particular layers,
Yes, because we find all animals on the Earth today living in all the same areas of the Earth as every other animal, fish on land, elephants in the water. Your reasoning is ridiculous.
There's a whole layer that spans thousands of miles in the Grand Canyon region which is packed with nautilus sea creatures and just about nothing else. Was that the Nautiloid era?
No, that would be the precambrian and cambrian, before the appearance of land animals.
I guess you guys are deluded enough to think so.
You guys? How about 99.999% of science your knucklehead. Who is deluding who?

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:51 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3209 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 102 of 409 (679819)
11-15-2012 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
11-15-2012 1:51 PM


Re: Dinosaurs
No you will not find Triassic and Jurassic dinosaurs in the same layer because they are different breeds or groups that were not with each other when the Flood hit and got buried separately.
They got buried one on top of the other even though they were involved in the same cataclysmic flood? If the flood theory were true, you should see dinosaurs mixed with mammals mixed with sea creatures, etc, all in one big layer not seperated out into hundreds of individual layers inside different types of rock.
You imagine the "formation" of different rocks instead of the mere carrying of the separated sediments on separated currents of water in a Flood to their final deposition, which explains their appearance far better than all the scenario building nonsense of modern geology.
Yeah because modern geologists are a bunch of retards. Why shouldn't we trust super-religious zealots like yourself with no education in geology over PhDs with decades in geology field work. Sheesh.
That is not how limestone, sandstone, mudstone, etc is formed. Limestone formation is a slow long process of the deposit of microscopic marine life over long periods of time. These microscopic creatures create calcium carbonate from the carbon dioxide that is disolved in the water. Lithification in the quantity of the Grand Canyon sediment layers cannot be done in 40 days .
The nautiloids are found just about entirely without any other form of life accompanying them in that layer that extends for thousands of square miles.
Nautiloids are found with fossils of other sea creatures of that geological age. Please provide source.
The fact that layers often contain only one type of creature such as the nautiloids is evidence against the explanation of the fossil record in terms of evolution.
They do not just contain one creature. Provide evidence.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 11:17 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024