Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (9010 total)
61 online now:
jar, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK (4 members, 57 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 881,552 Year: 13,300/23,288 Month: 230/795 Week: 26/33 Day: 8/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 207 of 1163 (787024)
07-01-2016 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by herebedragons
07-01-2016 7:38 AM


ITYM "EFT" for Evolution Fairy Tale?

The boss over there, Fred Williams, used to post here back in the day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by herebedragons, posted 07-01-2016 7:38 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Pressie, posted 07-01-2016 9:01 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 243 of 1163 (787126)
07-04-2016 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by edge
07-04-2016 2:39 PM


Jonathan Sarfati posted at TWeb for a few years as Socrates. He was a jerk and wasn't much of a debater, spewing the same stuff as the sheeple.

John Baumgardner posted there too, for a couple of weeks about 14C after the RATE Group first came out with that. He was torn to shreds and disappeared in a cloud of Pascal's wager..

Walt Brown posted at the old Kansas Citizens for Science forum for a couple of weeks. When he realized that he was expected to defend his ideas beyond pasting from his book he bailed.

So the ones I've seen were no better than the sheeple and didn't have the perseverance. Not impressive at all outside the prayer circle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by edge, posted 07-04-2016 2:39 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by edge, posted 07-04-2016 7:34 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(4)
Message 299 of 1163 (787426)
07-13-2016 9:13 AM


In Jesus' Name Productions wanted to make a movie about the fludde. They wanted it to reflect the most up-to-date views of creation "scientists". So in 2011 they assembled a bunch of them (including Walt "Hydropants" Brown, who walked out early after nobody would buy his BS) and conducted a Flood Science Review. I have the PDF of their book if anyone wants something specific from it, but obviously I can't hand it out.

From the introduction:

quote:
We believe a blockbuster level movie about the Biblical Flood has enormous potential. We believe The Flood movie could have historic impact throughout the world, if the science upon which it is based can be sufficiently defended. It could even represent a significant challenge to the validity of the theory of Evolution, and the history of mankind and our planet. Therefore, this Flood Science Review was put in place to review the latest Creation and Flood Science to determine if our models are at a sufficient level of maturity and defensibility on which to base a major motion picture. Authors were invited and sought out from a number of different perspectives:

Old Earth - No Global Flood

There are many Christians who are scientists, as well as, the vast majority of secular scientists, who firmly believe that there is abundant evidence that the Earth is old and no global flood has ever happen. If this position is correct, there is no need for our movie. Hence, we sought out authors who were willing to defend this position.

Local Flood

There are many Christians who are scientists, who believe the Bible teaches a local Flood rather than a Global Flood. If this position is correct, there is no need for our movie. Hence, we sought out authors who were willing to defend this position as well.

Flood Models

A Flood model is a model that attempts to explain how the Flood happened. Generally, this should begin before the Flood and describe how the Flood was initiated, the stages of the Flood and the post-Flood effects on the Earth.

Pre-Flood World Models

Since the movie will take place in the Pre-Flood World, models were also sought out that attempt to describe the physical characteristics of this pre-Flood world.

Note: The Vapor Canopy Model was at one time also viewed as a Flood model. Yet the majority of Christians who are scientists today no longer view the Vapor Canopy Model as a viable Flood model. This opinion changed over time through the scientific peer review process.


(There was some discussion of the vapor canopy "model".)

At the end the moderator's conclusion is:

quote:
I first want to thank all the Authors and Panelists for their hard work and dedication displayed throughout our Flood Science Review. Many have said to me, what has been accomplished throughout our Flood Science Review. Many have said to me, what has been accomplished through this Review has been historic for the Creation Movement. In Jesus’ Name Productions considers it a privilege to have hosted this Review, and we thank God for any progress that has been made.

As I stated in our Introduction (Intro-Objective):

We believe a blockbuster level movie about the Biblical Flood has enormous potential. We believe The Flood movie could have historic impact throughout the world, if the science upon which it is based could be sufficiently defended. It could even represent a significant challenge to the validity of the theory of Evolution, and the history of mankind and our planet. The critical question at this point is: Did any of our Flood models meet the objective of this Review as stated in our Introduction? The answer, according to our Panel’s Conclusions is: No, not at this time.

In Jesus’ Name Productions understood before this Review began, this could be the conclusion of our Panel. Conducting this Review for the past 2 years has been challenging and expensive (i.e., close to $50,000). Yet we are very encouraged, because we believe significant progress has been made, and while our goal has not yet been reached, a path towards it can now more clearly be set.

Hence, In Jesus’ Name Productions remains 100% committed to making The Flood movie once the Creation Community has a Flood model that is complete and ready to be defended before a secular audience. In the meantime, In Jesus’ Name Productions plans to continue to work with the Creation Community, including helping to raise or provide funds for research, until we all have a Flood model that is ready to take on and overturn the secular view of Earth’s history.


Let me repeat:

The critical question at this point is: Did any of our Flood models meet the objective of this Review as stated in our Introduction? The answer, according to our Panel’s Conclusions is: No, not at this time.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 07-13-2016 5:17 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 476 of 1163 (787765)
07-21-2016 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by ICANT
07-21-2016 2:57 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2016 2:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 479 of 1163 (787788)
07-21-2016 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by ICANT
07-21-2016 3:05 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2016 3:05 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 498 of 1163 (787835)
07-22-2016 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by ICANT
07-22-2016 1:05 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
You are not understanding anything.

Material goes down via subduction.
Material comes up via volcanos and diverging boundaries.
The processes balance each other.

How the Earth came to be is an interesting field of study unrelated to finding fossils deep underground.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:05 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 499 of 1163 (787836)
07-22-2016 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by ICANT
07-22-2016 1:23 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
They are not now where they lived and died.

The surface of the Earth is constantly in motion. Stuff goes down, stuff comes up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 761 of 1163 (794000)
11-08-2016 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 759 by Dr Adequate
11-08-2016 12:27 AM


Re: The bible: 14 pairs
In your eyes the primitive soft-bodied bilaterians, and the cataphract-armored intermediates may be satisfactory intermediates. But to supply evidence for your theory you would need fossils that more closely match each of those organisms that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian. That is one of the areas where evolutionary theory fails completely.

I can make no sense out of this post.

Easy-peasy. It's Behe at Dover all over again. Without a complete record of all intermediates, we go nuthin'. Standard creationist ploy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 759 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-08-2016 12:27 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 763 by mindspawn, posted 11-08-2016 2:28 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 764 of 1163 (794009)
11-08-2016 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 763 by mindspawn
11-08-2016 2:28 PM


Re: Intermediates
Please define "significant record" and "lacking" in this context. How many do you want?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 763 by mindspawn, posted 11-08-2016 2:28 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 886 of 1163 (794362)
11-14-2016 6:58 PM


He thinks of transgression/recession cycles as happening over sufficiently short time as to be remembered in human/societal memory. They would stay up in the mountains because they knew it was fruitless to build where the sea would just take it.

"O, wise and ancient elder, tell us the story of how close the seashore was when you were young!"


Replies to this message:
 Message 888 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2016 7:01 PM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 890 by edge, posted 11-14-2016 7:08 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6171
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1134 of 1163 (795839)
12-18-2016 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1129 by mike the wiz
12-18-2016 7:13 AM


Re: clades vs kinds
The fact is, evolutionists have used the same term. It's hair-splitting also, the point is "hydrological" is a perfectly usable term, I see no reason to use it as a lame attempt at a No-True-Scotsman-fallacy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html


Creationists use the term in an attempt to describe an alleged real event. Evolutionists use the term to refer to the creationist's failed attempt to explain the order of the fossil record. We do NOT use the term to describe reality 4,500-odd years ago.

Bet you didn't read you link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1129 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2016 7:13 AM 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