Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
26 online now:
Heathen, Tangle (2 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,944 Year: 21,980/19,786 Month: 543/1,834 Week: 43/500 Day: 1/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 8 of 1163 (785967)
06-13-2016 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2016 2:08 PM


Good post Dr. A

I guess what gets me is how every creationist "mechanism" works independent of other "mechanisms" and which one is invoked depends on the particular argument. For example, "differential motility" is used to explain the order of the fossil record. But then when in a discussion of the geological column, we have all the land being stripped down to bare rock in order to generate enough sediment to form the mile deep deposits, then being rapidly deposited as the flood recedes. The seemingly contradictory nature of these ideas - land being stripped bare from top to bottom and animals running to the highest points - is completely lost on creationists since they are meant to explain different things.

The quality or logic of an argument is irrelevant to a creationist since they already know what the right answer is. Even if an argument is obviously irrational, it doesn't matter because it comes up with the right answer anyway.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2016 2:08 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by edge, posted 06-14-2016 9:31 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 50 of 1163 (786139)
06-17-2016 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
06-17-2016 10:02 AM


conflicting creationist mechanisms
The Flood idea is that all the fossilized creatures would have been living at the same TIME, but there is no claim they were all living in the same PLACE, meaning as we understand the timing of the continental break-up, the same place on the supercontinent of Pangaea. Where they were buried is often explained in terms of their location of origin.

But doesn't this contradict your previous explanations, such as how sediments are deposited without relation to their origin? Don't you have all the land being stripped off in the very early stages of the flood and all the sediment being carried around in the flood currents being deposited according to some naturalistic mechanism?

As Dr. A pointed out in the OP, this would require that the organisms and the sediments had similar mechanical properties. That is, in order for a batch of sediment and a batch of organisms to be swept around in the flood currents and then deposited in the same location and at the same geological level, they would need to all have the same mechanical properties.

Are there two independent mechanisms that sort sediment and dead creatures that can operate at the same time?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 06-17-2016 10:02 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 06-17-2016 11:42 AM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 06-18-2016 7:50 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 71 of 1163 (786218)
06-18-2016 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dr Adequate
06-18-2016 9:33 PM


Paleogeology resources
I would really like to find a comprehensive listing of all the fossils found everywhere, at what location and in what layer and how the layer was dated etc. Shouldn't there be such a reference easily accessible?

Yes, that would indeed be nice.

Did you know about these resources?

This one shows locations of collections in both current location and paleogeologic reconstruction.

PBDB Navigator

This one has access to specimen data and 39,000+ images

Burke Museum

This one has data on over 1 million occurrences:

Fossilworks / Paleobiology Database

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-18-2016 9:33 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 07-09-2016 12:17 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 202 of 1163 (787014)
07-01-2016 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by mike the wiz
06-30-2016 7:15 AM


Mike, EFF is not a debate forum, it is an evangelism platform. Members are banned without cause or warning and even without knowing what "rule" they violated. Not only are moderators active participants, but they bait non-YEC members into breaking the forum rules (Percy does not participate in threads he is actively moderating). I spent some time there a couple years ago and found it an extremely frustrating experience.

It's really not a matter of EFF moderators keeping debate civil since YEC members are allowed to be very insulting (but of course since they don't use profanity and are simply telling the "truth" about "stupid, lying evolutionists" they are not being uncivil). Before you complain about sweeping generalizations of creationists and uncivil discourse here at EvC, you should take a good look in the mirror (not referring to you personally, but the whole of the EFF experience). This includes EFF members emphasis on "logical fallacies" by evolutionists, while ignoring their own lack of logic. My experience with you is that you like to swing by here for a couple posts, sling around a few insults (do I need to quote you?) and then disappear without defending your assertions. Think about it Mike, this behavior would certainly get a person banned at EFF, yet you have no qualms about doing it yourself over here. If you were really interested in civil, honest debate, you wouldn't behave in a way contrary to civil, honest debate. This is not a good indicator of how debate would go over at EFF.

Sometimes EvC does get a bit dull since there isn't much debate as there are very few creationists who frequent the forum and I don't much care for political discussions. I have even considered re-joining EFF under a different screen name, but decided it was really just a waste of time, since I am interested in intelligent, scientific debate and EFF is just not a conducive platform for that.

I also realize the advantage to debating on your home turf, with favorable numbers on your "side," and I realize the unattractiveness of debating in a "hostile" environment. But don't fool yourself into thinking that EFF is a neutral, non-hostile environment, because it is every bit as hostile to an evolutionist as EvC is to a creationist; which would be fine, I could deal with that, but the level of scientific discussion over there is just dismal. And so, for me, it is just not worth the effort to bring the discussion there.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by mike the wiz, posted 06-30-2016 7:15 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by JonF, posted 07-01-2016 8:43 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 204 of 1163 (787017)
07-01-2016 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by ICANT
07-01-2016 1:56 AM


I am a creationist and I don't believe any of the drivel you have wrote in this post.

Herein lies one of the biggest problems with creationist ideas: there is no coherent, unifying theory. Every creationist has his/her own unique spin on the story. Even the Bible doesn't bring unification to the study of "creation science" since everyone interprets the Scriptures a bit different in regard to the creation story.

Evolution, on the other hand, is described as the single most unifying theory in all of Biology, and it certainly is. It may even be the most unifying theory in all of science since it brings so many disciplines into a coherent, systematic body of study.

The ToE may be wrong and it may need to be majorly revised in the future, but for now it WORKS! It serves to tie together everything we know about Biology, Geology, Environmental Science, Ecology, Paleontology, and more, and provide us with a framework that simply WORKS; it allows us to answer questions, solve problems, and understand the world around us. Creationism has nothing like that, nothing - its just a loose collection of general ideals that vary from person to person.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by ICANT, posted 07-01-2016 1:56 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 205 of 1163 (787018)
07-01-2016 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Pressie
07-01-2016 7:51 AM


There was a reason... You didn't convert.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Pressie, posted 07-01-2016 7:51 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Pressie, posted 07-01-2016 8:24 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 240 of 1163 (787113)
07-04-2016 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by NoNukes
07-02-2016 12:06 AM


Perhaps mike the wiz, ICANT, and Faith together make a great point. None of those folks subscribe to the stuff that AIG and ICR put out. In fact, I cannot remember too many folks who toe that particular line very closely visiting here in the last few years.

The question is WHY don't they subscribe to the stuff the "Big Boys" are putting out? (although Mike has pointed to several articles by ICR, so apparently he does subscribe to some extent). I mean, these are the folks doing the "science" right? People that are adamant about creationism - meaning those that equate creationism to "Biblical Christianity" (mostly young earthers) - should be staunch supporters of those institutions that have supposedly proven that their beliefs are facts. Perhaps we just get the fringe creationists here and not the mainstream types who do subscribe to the stuff AiG and ICR put out.

but I've met plenty of creationists; my family has includes lots of folks who insist that Genesis is literally correct. Most of those folks haven't looked at a picture of the Grand Canyon since high school, and they could not tell a microscope from a telescope.

I think most "creationists" fall into this category. This seems to be sort of the default positions with many Christian denominations and most people have never really given it any thought. I was in this camp when I first started exploring this issue, just assumed it was true, just assumed that someone had done the work and that it was supported by evidence, just assumed that since folks like Ham and Hovind were Christians and were defenders of the Bible, that they would tell the truth about the science behind the stories. This is why the explanations they need to present need only to sound reasonable to the average person. They don't need a lot of data or actual field work, but just a reasonable sounding explanation that is dressed up with some sciency sounding words. This gives the average creationist the illusion that their beliefs are indeed factually supported.

When we generalize about what Creationist think, we mainly mean YEC folks. But how many of those folks care about Creation Science or have ever debated with someone who knows anything about real geology?

Yeah, when I generalize about creationists, I mean YECs, and more specifically, those that believe YEC is a scientifically viable theory - so, to be precise, I am referring to creation science. I don't have too much against people who hold to a particular set of beliefs and who recognize them as such, it is those who say that creation science is equal to Biblical Christianity that I have the most issue with.

Maybe attributing any particular creation science belief to creationists in general is just wrong.

You're probably right, but... why have almost 2 million people visited AiG's Creation Museum? And why are there these types of circus shows disguised as science popping up all over the country? Because, "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." While attributing any particular creation science belief to creationists in general may be wrong, it's not because there is some "good" creation science and some "bad" creation science, it is because there is no unifying theory. Every creationist can find support somewhere for their particular, personal version of the story.

I think it would be prudent, though, to be clear in our generalizations; that the thing most of us are opposed to is not the sincerely held beliefs of individuals but the "science" that is being touted in order to support those sincerely held beliefs. And as far as I am concerned, that "science," being false, deceives those with these sincerely held beliefs.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2016 12:06 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by edge, posted 07-04-2016 2:39 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 245 by NoNukes, posted 07-05-2016 1:11 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(5)
Message 387 of 1163 (787617)
07-19-2016 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Faith
07-19-2016 4:25 AM


Re: Why the Fossil Order Doesn't Matter
Faith writes:

Remember how these "slabs of rock" don't cover the ENTIRE surface of the earth? You have left those parts out of your illustration.

Remember the monadocks that jutted up through the Tapeats? You have left those out of your illustration.

Remember the buried canyons that were detected by seismic imagery? You left those out of your illustration.

Remember the channels that flowed at the surface of the Mauv limestone and were later filled in with Temple Butte formations (end of Cambrian)? You left those out of your illustration.

Remember that the layers in the GC are not uniform in thickness and some go from very thick to non-existent - even within the canyon? You left that out of your illustration.

Remember the flat lands of the central plains states? You left those out of your "surface of the earth today" drawing.

In short, you are comparing a mountainous section of the surface of the earth today with a flat section of the earth in the past. If you were actually trying to make a drawing that represented the way the surfaces ACTUALLY looked at those times, they would be very different and would include the ACTUAL features present at those times. You are just cherry picking.

BTW: nice illustration, even if it is not very realistic.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 4:25 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by edge, posted 07-19-2016 1:58 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 406 by Faith, posted 07-19-2016 8:37 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 473 of 1163 (787761)
07-21-2016 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by edge
07-21-2016 8:42 AM


Bizarro
The totally bizarre thing about this whole line of discussion is that it seems that Faith thinks that if the earth is old, as mainstream geology has determined, then we should see fully functional landscapes buried beneath loads of sediment. But if the global flood story is true, we should see highly organized sediments and fossil sequences that are structured into discrete, systematic units. The logic of this is just completely dumbfounding. It is like saying that good drivers have lots of traffic violations, accidents and insurance claims while the lousy drivers have impeccable driving records. I am not sure there is any remedy for this contention.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by edge, posted 07-21-2016 8:42 AM edge has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 781 of 1163 (794111)
11-10-2016 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 776 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 4:24 AM


Re: THE GREAT EVOLUTION FOSSIL FAILURE
Do you realize that common descent of all life forms from a LUCA is not the entirety of evolutionary theory? If fact, if it proved true that all major phyla popped into existence at the beginning of the Cambrian through some special act of creation, the ToE would still explain descent with modification of subsequent species. Creationists seem to think that common descent from a universal ancestor is THE foundation of the theory. It's not! Univeral common descent is a consequence of the theory; ie. a conclusion based on the theory that as of yet has not proven to be false.

Simply stated, the theory of evolution is that every organism is a descendant of a previous parental organism(s) and has inherited it's traits from it's parent(s) albeit with modifications that make it slightly different from it's parents. This process of descent with modification is then sufficient to explain speciation and the variety of life forms we observe on earth.

This basic evolutionary premise would still hold true even if all major phyla popped into existence at the beginning of the Cambrian. Of course, it would not explain the origin of those first life forms, but that's ok, because the ToE does not explain the origin of LIFE, just the origin of SPECIES.

Now... if the Cambrian explosion occurred 6000 years ago and the P-T boundary (flood) occurred 4400 years ago, that would present a serious problem for evolutionary theory. I would like to see creationists present a decent theory that explains the hyper-evolution that would be necessary under those conditions. It's absurd. You would have new species being formed almost on a daily basis. There is no known process that would explain that rate of change. It would almost literally be a dog changing into a cat... which you all tell us is impossible.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 4:24 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 782 of 1163 (794112)
11-10-2016 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 780 by mindspawn
11-10-2016 7:28 AM


Re: Intermediates
Again, this point doesn't challenge evolutionary theory itself. At best, it would suggest that evolutionary theory doesn't explain the origin of a specific creature.

However, the alternative explanation - that it was the product of a special creation - is hardly well evidenced either; no more than conjecture based on a lack of evidence. How could you know that any creature you point to was THE original specially created species? It seems much more likely that the organism descended from a parental organism with modification.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by mindspawn, posted 11-10-2016 7:28 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 70 days)
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 831 of 1163 (794248)
11-12-2016 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 794 by mindspawn
11-11-2016 2:50 AM


Re: Intermediates
Before I tackle those skulls in your post, are they in a claimed sequence? I'm only interested in so-called evidence of how some common ancestor ape evolved into human apes.

It should not be necessary to know any claimed sequence. The skulls shown represent branch tips of an evolutionary tree, not nodes; so there would not be any kind of linear relationship between them. Or in other words, one did not evolve into another. The issue is, if humans and apes are separately created species, then you should be able to clearly separate the groups based on morphological identity alone and those groupings should not relate to geological time. Here the image CS posted:

However, I note these are all Hominins, so perhaps you might say they are all human. idk. Maybe Coyote's image would be a better example?

Or in other words, why don't we find specimens like Ardipithecus ramidus in the same geological layers as Homo erectus. Why are they separated by geological time?

If these skulls represent separately created "kinds" then they should be easy to group into human and ape, with no specimens that are in the grey, fuzzy area between the two "kinds" and these groupings should not be correlated to geological time.

I would need EVERY claimed detail about those skulls if available. Arm length, skull capacity, scientific name, location, context. I definitely will not be able to answer you on skulls alone.

Somehow I doubt you are a forensic anthropologist... But, you certainly could make two groups and call one group apes and the other human based on some arbitrary cutoff for each character. However, I think you would find that it would not be too easy to create clean cutoff points for all characters that would provide consistent groupings. We refer to this phenomenon as incomplete lineage sorting. While several characters may produce one grouping, another set of characters may produce a different grouping. The reason for this is there are intermediates between the groups.

So, you don't need some proposed sequence, you need to describe what characters separate humans from apes and then, using those characters, describe which species fit in which group and demonstrate there are no intermediate forms. I'd bet it couldn't be done even for a few characters present in the skulls. There are clearly intermediate forms.

How about just answer this:

Is Australopithecus africanus human kind or ape kind? What about Ardipithecus ramidus, human kind or ape kind? And why?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 794 by mindspawn, posted 11-11-2016 2:50 AM mindspawn 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