Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (9011 total)
46 online now:
AZPaul3, ramoss (2 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Post Volume: Total: 881,566 Year: 13,314/23,288 Month: 244/795 Week: 40/33 Day: 12/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 254 of 1163 (787303)
07-09-2016 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
07-09-2016 12:17 PM


Re: Paleogeology resources
Faith writes:

It's nice to know all that information is available, as I thought it ought to be, but unfortunately it's not exactly layman-friendly.


The same could be said for aviation. You can't learn to fly a 747 by reading a few articles on the Internet - but even creationists don't go up to the cockpit and tell the pilot he's doing it wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 12:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 12:43 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 256 of 1163 (787308)
07-09-2016 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Faith
07-09-2016 12:43 PM


Re: Paleogeology resources
Faith writes:

... unlike the expertise required to fly a 747, one would think the geology professionals would want the average person to have access to such basic data.


The geology professionals are busy doing geology just like the aviation professionals are busy doing aviation. They don't have much interest in dumbing down their expertise for you just so you can tell them they're wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 12:43 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 1:48 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(4)
Message 268 of 1163 (787343)
07-10-2016 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Faith
07-09-2016 1:48 PM


Re: Paleogeology resources
Faith writes:

Science is regularly presented to the public. No reason whatever that the fossil record wouldn't be also, at least comprehensive digests of the whole panorama of information rather than the bits and pieces we usually get.


As a creationist, comprehensive information is not your friend. The deeper you dig, the harder it is to get out of the hole.

And the bizarre irony of it is you complaining that the information that will sink your boat is not accessible enough.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 1:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 359 of 1163 (787555)
07-17-2016 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Faith
07-16-2016 8:17 PM


Re: geologic "Column"
Faith writes:

Which makes it a big joke if those contents are really only the accidental flotsam of the Flood.


So you're going with the old Tornado in a Junkyard scenario. It wouldn't be able to assemble a 747 but it would be able to sort every screw, rivet, etc. into neat piles by size and shape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Faith, posted 07-16-2016 8:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by edge, posted 07-17-2016 2:42 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 470 of 1163 (787756)
07-21-2016 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by ICANT
07-21-2016 11:29 AM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
ICANT writes:

Sand, mud, water, grass, and the remains of trees are all found at depth's of 6 miles under the surface of the earth under 22,000 psi. How did these materials get to such great depth's?


A little bit at a time.

To see the processes happening, you can look out the window.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2016 11:29 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2016 3:05 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 490 of 1163 (787813)
07-22-2016 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by ICANT
07-21-2016 3:05 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
ICANT writes:

But wouldn't that require the earth to have been much smaller in diameter in the past than it is now?


No. Of course not. Where would the extra material have come from?

There's erosion happening at some places - e.g. mountaintops - and deposition happening at other places - e.g. valleys - at the same time. The mountains are flattened, the valleys are filled and - also at the same time - tectonic forces are building new mountains.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2016 3:05 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:05 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 493 of 1163 (787830)
07-22-2016 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by ICANT
07-22-2016 1:05 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
ICANT writes:

Where did the original material come from?


That's irrelevant to your question. The fact is that there is a certain amount of material and it keeps moving around. That accounts for the layers and the fossils in them.

ICANT writes:

How long did it take for the material to gather and form the earth?


The original formation of the earth is not the topic.

ICANT writes:

Such a slow production of material would make it hard for fossils to be formed and preserved.


It's always hard for fossils to be formed and preserved. That's why billions of organisms only make thousands of fossils.

Are you suggesting that most of the fossils were formed quickly by the Flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:05 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:31 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 510 of 1163 (787898)
07-23-2016 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by ICANT
07-22-2016 1:31 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
ICANT writes:

... I believe the early earth grew by accretion of materials supplied by asteroids, such as the one that produced the crater in the Gulf of Mexico.


The earth grows a very small amount because of the occasional asteroid and much more frequent meteorites. It also shrinks from various causes. I don't know if there is a net growth or a net shrinkage but in either case the amount is very small and can not account for the vast majority of the earth's mass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by NosyNed, posted 07-23-2016 9:30 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 528 of 1163 (788063)
07-25-2016 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Faith
07-24-2016 9:29 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
Faith writes:

... the strata could not possibly have been formed in such small bodies of water with such distinctive boundaries.


Remember the experiment we all did when we were nine? You can get strata in a peanut butter jar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 9:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 4:45 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 535 of 1163 (788126)
07-26-2016 11:43 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
Faith writes:

THE strata is of course a different thing from strata formed in a peanut butter jar.


One of the differences is that the strata out in the real world are not all laid down in one water-related event like in the peanut butter jar. There's a water event followed by a volcanic event followed by another water event followed by an Aeolian event and so on.

There is no way that all of those strata can be explained by one event. Your Flood can not explain the sorting of the fossils in the water events and it can not explain the non-water events between the water events. Those fossils have to represent organisms that were living peacefully on land during your supposed Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Faith, posted 07-26-2016 4:45 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 567 of 1163 (790601)
09-01-2016 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by Faith
09-01-2016 9:51 AM


Re: More amazing sorting
Faith writes:

You listed a lack of fossils in this particular area which turns out to be Precambrian, in other words the lowest rocks, in which there are normally few fossils, which ought not to be at all amazing to you.


I presume that in your scenario the Precambrian would represent the "bottom" of the Flood?

If so, why are there no fossils of modern life-forms before the Flood? If fossilization can occur as rapidly as creationists claim, why weren't any cows, whales, etc. fossilized in the several thousand years before the Flood? Why are there none in the Precambrian?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 9:51 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 1:01 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 569 of 1163 (790607)
09-01-2016 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by Faith
09-01-2016 1:01 PM


Re: More amazing sorting
Faith writes:

There shouldn't be ANY fossils from before the Flood.


But there ARE fossils in the Precambrian.

The question is why aren't there any modern ones? Why couldn't something like a rabbit be fossilized before the Flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by Faith, posted 09-01-2016 1:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by mindspawn, posted 11-05-2016 4:50 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 686 of 1163 (793859)
11-06-2016 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 684 by mindspawn
11-06-2016 1:31 PM


Re: The bible: 14 pairs
mindspawn writes:

"... and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female....


But not all birds are clean:
quote:
Leviticus 11:13-19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

And of course the Bible is also wrong about bats being birds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 684 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 1:31 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 688 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 2:11 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 691 of 1163 (793865)
11-06-2016 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 688 by mindspawn
11-06-2016 2:11 PM


Re: The bible: 14 pairs
mindspawn writes:

Also who knows if the classification of clean and unclean kinds regarding ark numbers was the same as the classification system centuries later when referring to clean and unclean kinds from a dietary perspective. Have you a biblical perspective on this?


As far as I know there's no Biblical reason to think the Bible is consistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 2:11 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 697 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 2:42 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 699 of 1163 (793873)
11-06-2016 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 697 by mindspawn
11-06-2016 2:42 PM


Re: The bible: 14 pairs
mindspawn writes:

So you openly criticize a religious book and feel no obligation to back up your criticism with facts.


I did provide facts. It's a fact that the Bible calls bats birds. It's a fact that bats aren't birds. All you've provided in rebuttal is, "Maybe the Bible didn't mean what it said when it said it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 2:42 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by mindspawn, posted 11-06-2016 2:58 PM ringo 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