Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (9010 total)
55 online now:
anglagard, PaulK, ringo (3 members, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 881,551 Year: 13,299/23,288 Month: 229/795 Week: 25/33 Day: 7/5 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 153 of 1163 (786811)
06-27-2016 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2016 2:08 PM


Dr A, your sophistry never ceases to amuse me. Even more amusing is the ignorant approval of it by the ever faithful evo-club that surrounds you to pat you on the back.

Exhibit A:

DrA writes:

But in that case do we not have to conclude that a velociraptor has the same hydraulic properties as a gorgonopsid? So why are they never found buried in the same strata together?

This is APPALLING reasoning, called, Arguing from silence fallacy. The fact is you SHOULD know that on the pre-flood continent both species could have been separated by ecological zonation, by thousands of miles. Your argument is that if a flood happened today, you should be found in the same strata as your friend who lives 2,000 miles away from you.

Dr A writes:

Creationists are dimly aware that the fossil record exhibits order, although (as we shall see) they don't really know what this order consists of. In the creationist imagination, the fossil record has crude, primitive organisms at the bottom, and then as one works up through the sedimentary layers the organisms get progressively more sophisticated, complex, agile, intelligent, etc, culminating in the awesome wonder that is Man

This really is awesome, because it is so backward. Do you think one of the most complex eyes, the aggregate eye, from a trilobite, was, "simple". I think if creationists are dimly aware, you are simply dim-witted, here you have actually contradicted the very thing we argue, and what we argue is that all creatures are modern and complex.

Furthemore, what do you know about what is in my, "imagination", do you have access to my thoughts?

Dr A writes:

One obvious objection is that these ecological zones would necessarily differ not just in altitude but also in location: they cannot be stacked one on top of another like different floors in an apartment complex, with the mammals living over the reptiles, and the reptiles above the fish. But in the fossil record we do find land animals and other clear indications of a terrestrial habitat directly above marine fossils and sediments.

But what you fail to know or either deliberately OMIT, is that in some places there isn't even found a cambrian-era. Here you make it seems as though there is neat an uniform fossil-record, with every strata, neatly laid down all over the earth. In fact there are arguments for example, which makes sense not just of the strata, but the odd features in it, such as a compression-event in the grand canyon, because the Cambrian layers are tilted, flatly cut off at that angle.

You also fail to mention that we find, "marine fossils" in every layer, not just the bottom layer like you want to make out. The law of superposition applies in a flood as well as long-ages. You forget that our model argues that is a stage of inundation and there is the recessional stages. Mt St Helens shown how quickly for example, strata can build up.

Dr A writes:

This leads us on to the fundamental creationist blunder which we mentioned at the start of this discussion: they have not the faintest idea what the fossil record looks like, and so are contriving their explanations for something that isn't actually there.

This is amusing considering you think the fossil-record is a, (and I quote) "apartment complex". Talk about an own-goal!

Your post is a RANT. A long-winded one of that, consistent of a lot of wind, mostly in the form of question-begging-epithets, such as, "dimly", "blunder"

Dr A writes:

We should not anticipate that any creationist will ever explain the actual features of the fossil record in terms of the Flood. It is unlikely at this late date that any of them is going to find out what the fossil record looks like, an activity which would both contradict their prejudices and involve doing some actual work. But I invite any creationist who wants to to give it a try.

Oh I see it, but it's all of that negative-evidence which I don't see, that counts. Columbo should have taught you by now that it isn't just what you see but it's what you don't see. For example we don't see the thousands of missing fictional evolutionary forms.

So for the sake of argument, even if the fossil record didn't favour a flood, what makes you think that this would somehow favour evolution?

Do you want to know what would favour evolution? here is a clue: NOT a general fixity of forms, but the actual transitionals that show us how they evolved into things there were not precedingly. Show me the real fossil evidence of how a seahorse which is a vertically swimming fish, evolved from a horizontal swimmer, so that we can see how it achieved it. Show me the real fossil-transitions of pterosaurs and bats, showing the useful inbetween stages between quadrupedal motion and flight. Show me the real fossil evidence for the transitionals for jellyfish, ichtyosaurs, dugongs, manatees, turtles, starfish, snails, dragonflies, millipedes, etc, etc, etc...

Nice rant Dr A, but if you want my respect you're going to have to abandon sophistry and rhetorical tricks, and actually show something of intellectual credence.

Dr A writes:

So creationists also drag in a second mechanism, "hydrological sorting" (which real scientists usually call "hydraulic sorting"

No true scotsman fallacy. If there are creationists with genuine scientific qualifications, then they are, "real" scientists, so the term, "real" is a question-begging-epithet.

"Khan, I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect" - Captain Kirk, The Wrath Of Khan.

For me the, "great creationist fossil failure" is the greatest rhetorical-epithetical baloney of this thread. In case you haven't studied logic 101, if I find in the fossils, when looking for a pine tree, an identical 250 million year old pine tree with no evolutionary ancestors, then that is the only logical, "success" I can hope to find. If a flood largely created the fossils, and animal kinds have always been the same, then I would expect to find that very thing, no matter what the layer is. It also would not matter the evolutionary-age of the layer, for all layers, or most, would have been laid down in one year.

So logically speaking, the fossil record is the greatest success we could hope for, for if we argued apriori what the fossils should contain, and if we had never known what they yet contained, we would predict as creationists that we would find the same animals that look identical. And if evolutionists had never seen the fossil record, since their theory explains how everything on earth was created by evolution, the correct logical prediction would be that the fossils would generally show evolutionary change, not, "stasis". Putting the word, "evolution" before stasis might make a nice oxymoron, but let's face it, in order for a jellyfish to become a jellyfish I don't need evolution, I JUST NEED JELLYFISH! (Occam's razor)

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2016 2:08 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-27-2016 7:03 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 160 by edge, posted 06-27-2016 7:35 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 161 by edge, posted 06-27-2016 7:39 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 171 by Pressie, posted 06-29-2016 1:00 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 154 of 1163 (786812)
06-27-2016 5:01 PM


Woodmorappe writes:

There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field.

Secondly, those locations where it has been possible to assign all ten periods represent less than 0.4% of the earth’s surface, or 1% if the ocean basins are excluded. Obviously it is the exception, rather than the rule, to be able to assign all of the ten Phanerozoic periods to the sedimentary pile in any one location on the earth. It does not engender confidence in the reality of the geological column when it is absent 99% of the time.

http://creation.com/does-geologic-column-exist

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by edge, posted 06-27-2016 7:24 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 163 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-28-2016 12:03 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 167 by 14174dm, posted 06-28-2016 12:35 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 155 of 1163 (786814)
06-27-2016 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Adequate
06-13-2016 2:08 PM


Dr A, just a question out of general interest. I notice you always say, in many of your posts and threads, "creationists do X" or, "creationists say P". I am just wondering, since I am a dim creationist, why you don't seem to notice that it is a logical error to treat a group as an individual person?

It just seems you always say, "creationists do this.." then you will note the thing you are accusing, "them" of doing.

So since I am a dim person that doesn't do my homework, do you know that this type of rhetorical-argument, is called the hasty generalisation fallacy? You seem to get an experience of a creationist, or at least what you think they are saying, and apply that to all of the group, "creationists".

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/...ion/hasty-generalisation

I mention this because YOU DO IT A LOT. Basically you just want to say mean things about creationists don't you? "creationists do this, creationists do that".

In any group there are individuals who argue certain things. I have debated evolutionists that simply don't do ANY homework and similarly there are creationists that don't do ANY homework.

Certain behaviour does not belong to the group, "creationist"

Example: Catholics wear clothes.

Does this now mean that catholics are the group that should be known for wearing clothes, and nobody else from any other groups?

Oh but I am the, "dim" creationist, right? Perhaps I invented the fallacy of hasty generalisation or borrowed it from a, "real" intellect, which we call, "evolutionists"?

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-13-2016 2:08 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Tangle, posted 06-27-2016 6:14 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 158 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-27-2016 7:20 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 173 of 1163 (786917)
06-29-2016 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Tangle
06-27-2016 6:14 PM


Tingle writes:

Hi Mick, why don't you put down your book of logical fallacies and argue some facts?
As you note, there are people here who are not dim, we've also read the book and have progressed from psedo-philosophical argument to real knowledge. Why not follow?

Where's your beef?

The name is Mike.

Nice baseless assertion there, seems all you can do is attack, "mike the wiz", eh? Oh sure, you're not dim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Tangle, posted 06-27-2016 6:14 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Tangle, posted 06-29-2016 12:38 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 174 of 1163 (786919)
06-29-2016 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Pressie
06-29-2016 1:35 AM


It seems as if mike the wiz thinks that the Cambrian is a 'rock layer', the Ordovician is a 'rock layer', the Silurian is a 'rock layer', etc.

Well, technically speaking what do you define them as? Do you define them as, "eras", because if you do, you should know that they don't come with evolutionary tags on them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Pressie, posted 06-29-2016 1:35 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2016 12:37 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 192 by Pressie, posted 06-30-2016 1:07 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 193 by Pressie, posted 06-30-2016 6:51 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 177 of 1163 (786927)
06-29-2016 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by edge
06-27-2016 7:35 PM


Edge writes:

Actually, I find it to be quite apt. No YEC has ever explained the fossil record and even Faith admits this. What Dr. A has done is laid out the main YEXplanations and summarily destroyed them, just as has been done in the past, but in a single post.

Why? because you say so? Ever heard of a bare-assertion before? I am guessing not. "Hey, our guy has just beaten you all to a pulp! What, my evidence? Didn't you hear me, our guy has just beaten you all to a pulp."

Lol! That's me refuted then.

Shouting "we win" might prove a great deal to you. And my dad is bigger than your dad, Edge.

Edge writes:

Sure, then you just have to show us how all of the geological processes that we see in the record were able to happen in one year.
It's that easy.

Show us how mountain ranges rose up and eroded away in a year.

Show us how dinosaurs were able to procreate and make nests in one year while under water.

This is called elephant-hurling. I could elephant-hurl a list of of the things that uniformatarianism can't explain at you too, what would it prove? Did you think I was going to address the list of things you say show an old age? Poor dear thinks I'm stupid enough to be baited when he hasn't addressed anything I said.... Awww, that's so cute.

I need a translation of this paragraph. It appears to be as jumbled as your understanding of geological history.

When you don't deal with someone's arguments and just go for attacking their credibility rather than rebutting what they specifically say, this is called argumentum ad hominem. Didn't you know that? It is one of the fallacies of diversion, because it distracts people into thinking that if they can just detract from the arguer, then the argument doesn't have to be dealt with.

You might as well have just said, "oh Mike, you big dick head for being a creationist".

Erm.....okay then. Nice talking to you too.

And if you need me to explain why the reproduction of jellyfish only requires jellyfish then we are in for a very long night. I suggest I bring my hand-puppets next time I visit the forum. In case you still don't get it here is an analogy; Imagine I sat down to dinner and I needed a knife, a fork and a plate to eat my food, imagine if you then said to me, "here is a spoon too,". I would look at you with an incredulous face would I not? So then, "evolutionary stasis" as an oxymoron, is amusing to me, giving these facts.

So my "understanding" wasn't, "jumbled" to begin with. The term, "jumbled" was a question-begging-epithet. Don't you find it rather embarassing to tell someone who understands what they are saying completely, they don't understand when you yourself have just said, "I need a translation of this paragraph".

Yes - YOU need a translation, because you are not smart enough to understand deductive reasoning, whereas I am. If there is a theory of created kinds as the antecedent then as confirmation, our consequent would be, "then there would follow similar type creatures, basically unchanged", whereas for evolution an apriori prediction is that we would expect to see the transitionals.

Using the modus tollens (method of destruction) we can then falsify the claim if there is a conspicuous absence of evidence, which is regarded as falsification-evidence according to Popper.

So next time YOU don't understand, don't pretend that is because of my stupidity. If YOU don't understand then YOU are the one that doesn't have a basic grasp of deductive reasoning. For if identical animal kinds don't count as evidence kinds have remained unchanged, then please show me how to qualify evidence for baramins. There is only one other option according to the law of the excluded middle, and that is that the fossils would, "not" look the same.

In other words you would have to argue that if we predicted what we would find in the fossils APRIORI to our knowledge of the fossils, we would expect evidence of baramins to look different, and not look the same.

AHAHAHAHAHA! What a brilliant example of reductio-ad-absurdum! If only you had the intelligence to understand why. Alas, you never will. A simpler explanation would need hand-puppets, and why should I hang around here to have tomatoes and eggs thrown at me, when I have so cleverly avoided your political scoring-system.


"Khan, I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect." - Captain Kirk


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by edge, posted 06-27-2016 7:35 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by caffeine, posted 06-29-2016 1:15 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 185 by edge, posted 06-29-2016 2:50 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 178 of 1163 (786929)
06-29-2016 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dr Adequate
06-29-2016 12:37 PM


DrA writes:

No, they come with fossils and various radioactive isotopes in them.

This is why this thread is called "The Great Creationist Fossil Failure" and not "The Great Creationist Evolutionary Tags Failure".

Now, would you like to try to explain the fossil record in terms of creationist fantasies, or are you having too much fun proving my point for me?

No, ROCKS come with fossils and isotopes in them Dr A. Goodness me, don't tell me you think a neurosis exists in the rocks? Your neurotic agreement that the rocks are ages, exists between your ears, Sir. What exists as reality, is the facts themselves, which are the rocks.

Or are you saying rocks don't exist and eras do?

DrA writes:

Now, would you like to try to explain the fossil record in terms of creationist fantasies, or are you having too much fun proving my point for me?

Oh that's it for me, you've really baited me with those epithets Dr A, I won't sleep tonight worrying if we evolved.

Lol


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2016 12:37 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by edge, posted 06-29-2016 2:56 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 189 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2016 5:40 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 179 of 1163 (786930)
06-29-2016 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Tangle
06-29-2016 12:38 PM


Just pointing out that endless fallacy geekery is getting you nowhere - we all know them. We're interested in facts and evidence - if you started to produce some, you might make some progress.

So if you knew the fallacies you would commit them? (argumentum ad hominem for example)

That's an example of reductio-ad-absurdum, I can refute the statement by use of the modus tollens because the consequent would be ABSURD.

If you knew all of the fallacies you make, you would not make them by attacking my credibility, be attempting to argue I don't understand and am muddled. I am not muddled at all, but if you love FALSEHOOD and LIES then that's your problem, why should I make it mine?

You say, "bring on the argument" in so many words, but essentially I have done what I came to do, I revealed DrA's rubbish for what it is. Now all you guys can do is hang around throwing eggs and tomatoes and declaring my defeat.

I would never have expected that.

As for the facts, we all have the same facts but it's how we interpet them. It's also the missing facts that count, as I mentioned in an earlier post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Tangle, posted 06-29-2016 12:38 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2016 1:35 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 187 by edge, posted 06-29-2016 3:03 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 181 of 1163 (786932)
06-29-2016 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by caffeine
06-29-2016 1:15 PM


But that is the whole point of this thread, that rocks of different ages contain different assemblages of fossils. Lobsters are never found in rocks older than the Cretaceous; trilobites are never found in rocks younger than the Permian. A fact wholly unexplained from the creationist point of view.

If you had known Dr A as long as I have read him you would know that this is not what the thread is about.

Nevertheless, arguing-from-silence is a fallacy sometimes known as the denial of the antecedent.

It's not, "unexplained" from the creationist point of view, it's that there is a whole lot more assumptions we start from.

You assume (begging-the-question) that I have accepted these eras, but as creationists we assume that most of the layers happened in one year. So if we find trilobites in one layer and another creature such as an Ichthyosaur or nautiloid in another layer, (or whetever), from our perspective it would just mean that they lived in different ecological zones and were buried during the same era, all one era. At least TRY to understand what the creationist position is first!

It is a reasonable assumption because even today if a big flood came, we wouldn't necessarily expect to find white sharks in British seas. And you also have to consider the dispersal of the pre-flood super-continent.

It takes a lot more studying of the issue. Unfortunately evolutionists don't really care about studying it, they would rather take easy pot shots at creationists.

It all depends on starting assumptions. Arguing-from-silence is a fallacy, because sometimes silent species crop up early in the fossil record where previously silent. Grass has recently been found in dino-layers.

so arguing-from-silence has been proven time and time and time again to be fallacious reasoning. evolutionists find species earlier that were previously silent, and then they FORGET they argued-from-silence.

I remember they found a living-fossil, the wollemi pine tree. Previously it was silent. Recently they have found more than one lycopod in, "ancient" forests, and even evidence of wood, when they said wood came later.

When we think of the global flood, what is the percentage of species wiped out and obliterated? Obviously the percentage of fossils is TINY, most fossils are marine invertebrates IIRC.

We have explanations, it's just that you unjustly claim that we don't or believe we don't because you don't study those explanations properly, you guys only exist to throw eggs, just admit it. But I thank you Caffeine as you have not personally attacked me......YET.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by caffeine, posted 06-29-2016 1:15 PM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by edge, posted 06-29-2016 3:15 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 190 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2016 5:42 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 183 of 1163 (786935)
06-29-2016 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by PaulK
06-29-2016 1:35 PM


What did I, "admit"? Can you flesh our your argument Paul? Perhaps it was a tacit admission you think you uncovered? But I doubt it, I'm just too smart to be sloppy. And you know that Paul. (I robbed that from Ken Ham, he always says to Hugh Ross, "and you know that, Hugh".)

Though I can't hang around EvC too much, remember I am obliged to cleverly avoid the political scoring-system just for starters, secondly, beating my head against a wall isn't the most rewarding past-time. Do you think we will end up as best mates and agree with each other? Or do you predict we will go in circles? No offence but you're pretty obstinate when it comes to debate, my experiences tell me that you look for a fight, but in a kind of passive-aggressive way. I'm really OVER fighting, which is why I joined the EFF forum instead. I can have discussions with evolutionists there and it never turns into a fight. But this is a bit of a lions den for a creationist. Not that I have any trouble addressing the average-intelligence arguments from most evolutionists, but obviously it is not very smart to hang around just to get insulted, and have your credibility attacked all for the crime of being a devout Christian that believes we aren't all here by accident because a tornado assembled a 747 jet after blowing through a junkyard.

*rant over*

As for Dr A, if intellect were hearing, he couldn't, "hear a dump truck driving through a nitroglycerine plant" - National Lampoons Christmas vacation.

(Only kidding "Dr" A.)

(I think you guys have fed on me long enough, time to remain caged, I might come back and throw some meat in your cage in a few months, who knows you might have eaten each other by then, by thinking one of your number is a creationist spy)

(mikey-mischief complete)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2016 1:35 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 06-29-2016 2:20 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-29-2016 5:46 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 194 of 1163 (786967)
06-30-2016 7:15 AM


http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6627...

"Khan...you had it your way once, are you game for a re-match?.....Khan?....I'm LAUGHING at the "superior" intellect!" - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.


Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Pressie, posted 06-30-2016 7:24 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 196 by Tangle, posted 06-30-2016 7:35 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-30-2016 11:15 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 198 by edge, posted 06-30-2016 6:34 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 202 by herebedragons, posted 07-01-2016 7:38 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 203 by Pressie, posted 07-01-2016 7:51 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 211 of 1163 (787038)
07-01-2016 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Pressie
07-01-2016 8:59 AM


Pressie writes:

mike the wiz, you still don't want to answer me on geological periods not being 'rock layers'. Take your time, mike the wiz. I've read most of the nonsense written by creationists about geology. Every single one of them told lots and lots of untruths about everything.

Naturally with so many posts aimed at the creationist at sites like this it can be easy to miss comments. I also only intended to address the O.P. in my original response, I don't remember saying that I would pretend to be a geologist. If you actually read my initial response I didn't really mention too much about geology really, I just addressed the errors of generalisation, etc...it is others who have tried to drag me into a debate I wasn't really taking part in. (Perhaps understandably if you guys are thirsty for creationists to debate with.)

I know it would be an advantage for the evolutionists if I did pretend to be a geologist of course. Are you a geologist?

No, geological periods are not "rock layers", it's possible I might have conflated the two while typing quickly. Please tell me you are not going to INFLATE such a minor error to now constantly make some kind of ad-hominem allusion, because of course, the debate focusing on me, would be precisely that, a diversion of arguing-the-person. (I know you haven't done that YET).

I would say the geological periods, are a neurotic-agreement. You're entitled to disagree, but I think there is more too the rocks than just geology, I think geomorphology is very important, and I believe geomorphological features are better explained by catastrophism. Especially planation and erosional remnants and inselbergs. (I don't have a great knowledge of those things, but my genetically modifed intellect allows me to see the most important points) (Trekkies will get the joke)

Pressie writes:

I've read most of the nonsense written by creationists about geology. Every single one of them told lots and lots of untruths about everything.

You say this as though you are some authority on geology. Am I to assume you have a phd in geology?

Saying creationists are liars and argue, "nonsense".

Think about it - that is why an ad-hominem argument exists, as diversions. The only thing that fascinates me about them is how they also turn into an argumentum ad nauseam P.R.A.T.T (point refuted a thousand times)

Must I re-address regurgitated ad-hominem comments each and every time, or can we turn the page?

Why would you need to constantly debate the person? I don't. The fact I don't need to, shows I am not insecure in my beliefs. (if I do make personal comments it is for the purpose of mikey-mischief and I always leave smilies or say, "only kidding" to let people know I am being cheeky rather than serious).

Think of how it comes across to me. It comes of as just a nad desperate. Here comes a creationist, and *BANG* "creationists are liars," *bang* "creationists are idiots* ETC. "creationists are dimly aware of X*.

It's a yawn-fest. You're proving that you are just prejudiced and have a chip on your shoulder pertaining to creationists. I propose what my good friend Mike Summers would propose - that you forgive creationists for not doing what you, think they, "should" do, in your opinion.

Accepting reality is a part of forgiveness. It seems to me you guys can't forgive people for the crime of creationism, because it reminds you that God could be there and you may have to answer to Him one day, despite your great efforts to intellectualise Him out of existence.

I apologise for believing I am not random pond scum, I apologise for not wanting to treat others like they are random pond scum. Now what should I do? Sacrifice a bull to Darwin?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Pressie, posted 07-01-2016 8:59 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2016 7:57 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 213 by edge, posted 07-01-2016 10:01 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 214 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2016 12:06 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 219 by edge, posted 07-02-2016 7:37 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 220 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 8:01 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 222 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 8:18 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 223 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 8:23 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 224 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 8:41 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 239 by 14174dm, posted 07-03-2016 6:50 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 225 of 1163 (787081)
07-03-2016 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by NoNukes
07-02-2016 12:06 AM


NNukes writes:

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

I appreciate that, yes, the fallacy is the sweeping generalisation fallacy. When people take one example of a creationist and apply that to all creationists, it is the hasty generalisation fallacy. The "sweeping" type is to infer something about an individual from something we can say about the group.

For example if we took the, "mean average" IQ of religious people and for argument's sake it was 90 but for atheists was 100, it wouldn't follow that a particular religious person had an IQ of 90 and the atheist he was debating an IQ of 98. In fact a particular religious person may have an IQ of 98 and the atheist he is debating, 92.

I actually have not referred to myself as a "YEC" for some years, and have even written topics explaining how I am not of the "YEC" position in fact. I agree with a lot of what YECs argue but basically I do not insist that the earth or universe is a particular age.

If I share a conclusion with a, "YEC" that does not mean my argument is the same as theirs, ( Ag Logicam fallacy).

Example of two arguments that share the same conclusion;

"I conclude mike is a human being predicated on the fact that pigs are mammals"
"I conclude mike is a human because he has all of the elements of humanity, human DNA/anatomy/blood,.etc.."

As you can see, it is quite irrelevant as to what some other creationist argued, or how terrible you deemed his argument to be. It may well have been terrible, it may be that you were in fact conversing with someone akin to or similar to Hovind, nevertheless that does not affect the veracity of any arguments I make.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2016 11:25 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 226 of 1163 (787082)
07-03-2016 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Pressie
07-03-2016 8:23 AM


Pressie writes:

So, you agree that the Cambrian is not a 'rock layer'?

I agree that it is of no consequence. The fact is there are rocks labelled as, "Cambrian", and there are portions of rock missing that would be regarded as Cambrian because it was a purported era.

However, this assumes that the portions missing are missing. The problem with such reasoning is obvious, imagine I argued that martians had not been found on Mars because the type of evidence left would be expected from the wars the martians had. In effect, "no evidence of martians" becomes my evidence for martians. (yes, I am aware of erosional-arguments, the problem is sometimes there is no empirical evidence as to why we should infer that, it could just be a more parsimonious explanation that the cambrian is represented as in fact a neurosis.

Pressie writes:

You call it a 'minor error'? It's major. Creationists never tell the truth, mike.

When someone repeats a personal charge, coupled with a generalisation, as a bare-assertion, and then repeat it and get stuck on making personal judgements, then their argument becomes a very fallacious cocktail of codswallop we can refer to as an ad nauseam P.R.A.T.T (point refuted a thousand times).

It does not follow that creationists are liars because they interpret the evidence differently to you, nor have you provided proof you are not a liar, and are honest. Don't you know what an ad-hominem argument is yet? It is a diversion. You cannot possibly know and state the creationist is a liar just because he does not agree with you. You have to show a clear lie. If someone won't state the facts as you want them to be stated that is not a lie, it means they won't agree to your terms of debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 8:23 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 9:22 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 229 by Coyote, posted 07-03-2016 10:51 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 231 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2016 11:30 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 232 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 12:09 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 235 by 14174dm, posted 07-03-2016 12:41 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 237 by edge, posted 07-03-2016 5:40 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4697
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 514 of 1163 (787955)
07-24-2016 10:45 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 you might enjoy this rather amusing example of how long ages for rocks, just don't, "fit". The video is only ten minutes long but obviously when you listen to these two guys, and what they say, to be honest the SENSE of what they say is so much greater than any theoretically implausible scenario that it's laughable, as was the old-age explanation. (Just don't go diving, you might end up as a fossil, I know I have seen at least 50 people this summer, at the bottom of the ocean with their heads stuck in the mud.) LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e6YHCJ4A5s


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 516 by Tangle, posted 07-24-2016 2:00 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 07-24-2016 2:05 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 519 by Toby, posted 07-24-2016 2:34 PM mike the wiz 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 © 2020