Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
40 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,021 Year: 22,057/19,786 Month: 620/1,834 Week: 120/500 Day: 17/61 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 533 of 1163 (788105)
07-26-2016 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by Faith
07-26-2016 4:45 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
THE strata is of course a different thing from strata formed in a peanut butter jar.

There is no such thing as THE strata...

There's different strata all over the place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 4:45 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 537 of 1163 (788133)
07-26-2016 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by Faith
07-26-2016 11:32 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Sure, they really aren't. Can we now count on you to stop referring to them as THE strata, as if there was only one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 11:32 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 1:39 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 539 of 1163 (788153)
07-26-2016 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 538 by Faith
07-26-2016 1:39 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Sorry, there is only ONE geological column on which the Geo Timetable is based.

Sure, but that's abstraction. There is not an actual geological column that has all of the layers in it.

Different places on the planet have different stratum in their individual geological columns. So really, there are lots and lots of geological columns.

What is refered to as The Geological Column is an artifact of summing all of the individual geological columns into one master geological column, but its not a real thing that exists in the planet rather it is a concept of what all of the stratum together would look like.

There is only ONE kind of strata that I'm ever talking about, so no, I'm not going to stop talking about them as one particular phenomenon.

But you're not talking about a real thing. You're talking about an abstraction as if it is a real thing. That's only ever going to lead you astray and cause confusion.

Nowhere on Earth is there a place where The Geological Column exists in it entirety.

Sorry.

You know, if you Google "the geological column" then you get either creationist sites talking about it, or evolutionist sites talking about the creationist sites talking about it. You don't get any scientific sites talking about it:

https://www.google.com/#q=the+geological+column

Why do you think that is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 1:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 544 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2016 1:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 541 of 1163 (788193)
07-26-2016 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Faith
07-26-2016 3:04 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Yes, the strata are real.

What would be wrong would be to say: "The strata is real."

It's especially wrong if you're implying that there's just one strata, there are so many instances of different ones.

It's deceitful to conflate that implication with the entirety of The Geological Column.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 3:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(5)
Message 774 of 1163 (794072)
11-09-2016 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 768 by mindspawn
11-09-2016 5:29 AM


Re: Intermediates
This problem is particularly prevalent with human sequences where the fossils are normally full fledged apes or full fledged humans, and yet intermediates are claimed.

Uh... humans are apes. Humans. Are. Apes.

What you said is the same as saying that one car is a fully fledged Corvette while another car is a fully fledged Chevrolet.

Or that one animal is a fully fledged dog while the other is a fully fledged mammal.

It's called a nested hierarchy <--clicky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 768 by mindspawn, posted 11-09-2016 5:29 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 777 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 4:44 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 792 of 1163 (794142)
11-10-2016 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 777 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 4:44 AM


Re: Intermediates
You are obviously correct. Kindly forgive me for my occasional lapses in terminology, I'm not as used to discussing this subject as you guys. I appreciate the correction, it's good to get the terminology correct so that we are all on the same page.

Okay, humans are apes, so let's go back to what you were saying:

I do believe in rapid outward transformation, so I'm not as careful to dispute any sequence as other creationists, but some big claims like apes to humans I do definitely dispute.

So going "from ape to human"... it doesn't quite make sense because humans are still apes, but we can roll with it. Let's say "from non-human ape to human ape".

How is a nested hierarchy from non-human apes to human apes different from what you are calling "rapid outward expansion"?

Many so-called evolutionist sequences are incorrect on closer analysis of the sequence. This problem is particularly prevalent with human sequences where the fossils are normally full fledged apes or full fledged humans, and yet intermediates are claimed.

Given that the theory is that going from a non-human ape to a human ape will always be via a route of a nested hierarchy, and given the assumption that we can always tell the human apes from the non-human ones, how can you stand by a claim of no intermediates when there are clearly fossils of apes that fall in-between being clearly non-human to sorta non-human, to maybe human-ish, to pretty-close-but-not-quite-fully-human?

Various breeds of apes and races of humans are arranged into a false evolutionary sequence that looks correct only superficially.

Its not superficial though. As the fossils get older, the more non-human the apes are. And as you get closer to modern times, the fossils become more and more human-like.

If you like you can use one of your human sequences to prove evolution and we can analyse the physical attributes of them to see if evolutionists have any legitimate case for the evolution of humans. Any evidence for evolution will be appreciated.

Check it out:

All fossils are consistent with creationism. So I do not see why you think any fossils are more consistent with evolution than creationism. Could you cite some examples please.

Those fossils are certainly consistent with evolution.

The only way they are consistent with creationism, is if they were being created to look like they evolved!

Why would God do that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 777 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 4:44 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 805 by mindspawn, posted 11-11-2016 4:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019