|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Apparently Woodmorappe is clueless as to the point of a geologic column. Notice I don't refer to "THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN" Each point on the earth has its own geologic history and therefore is its own geologic column.
This point is completely irrelevant to the validity old ages and faunal succession. I'm not sure how it got started other than by some YEC saying that there is no complete geologic column except in textbooks, or something to that effect. Why would there be a complete collection of all the eras at any one point? Geology on the earth is an ongoing process of erosion and deposition. Why would there be any point on the earth that was continuously deposited on without significant erosion? That a few points with every era exist is more a matter of winning a lottery. The correct response would have been to say 'so what?' Unfortunately, Glenn Morton decided to take them on with facts. Now it's been blown way out of proportion with idiotic responses like Woody's, where he virtually denies erosion and non-deposition (well, he had to make a vague exception with angular unconformities).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
He rarely wants to discuss anything.
That seems to be the case with most YECs willing to post. In a way, I really don't blame them for asymmetric warfare. It's all they've got.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Why? because you say so?
Sure. That is why we are here. To discuss.
Ever heard of a bare-assertion before?
Hear of them??? I see them every day, posed by evidence-challenged YECs.
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."
Do you have a point, other than the fact that you cannot address the opening post?
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.
Did someone say that? Dr. A demolished the yexplantions for the fossil record. Do you have a response?
This is called elephant-hurling.
Just one of them. I was giving you a choice. It should be easy for you.
I could elephant-hurl a list of of the things that uniformatarianism can't explain at you too, what would it prove?
Heh, heh... YECs never do that, do they?
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.
So, you admit that you will not address any of the issues brought up in the OP, Duly noted.
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.
Actually, no. I was criticizing your post. The paragraph in question was not clear.
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.
Yeah. It's a pretty straightforward comment. Please rewrite the paragraph.
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.
This is coming from a guy who just complained about ad hominem arguments ...
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.
And we do. So, your point is?
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.
But there is a conspicuous presence of evidence. What are you talking about?
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.
Or you might just not be very clear in your posts ... So, what kinds of Cambrian animals are identical to modern kinds?
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.
But how do they look? Sorry, I am not a baraminologist.
AHAHAHAHAHA! What a brilliant example of reductio-ad-absurdum!
Where is that? You seem to be rambling.
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.
Yes, you have avoided addressing the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
Actually, we distinguish between the time periods and the rocks in them. For instance: the 'Cambrian Period' and the 'Cambrian System'. In shorthand, the "period" or "system" may be omitted.
Or are you saying rocks don't exist and eras do?
In general, we say that both do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
So if you knew the fallacies you would commit them? (argumentum ad hominem for example)
You do understand that logical fallacies are not always fallacious, do you not? 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? They can all be used as rhetorical tools. Just as we use opinions for support, though they are not, strictly speaking, evidence.
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.
Hmmmm, must have missed that.
I would never have expected that.
Nonsense. It is necessary for you to ignore a ream of facts on an ad hoc basis, in order to maintain your YEC scenario. Do you want to discuss some of them?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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!
Okay, I understand. Then, please find for us the trilobite zone that is the same age (or month) as the dinosaur zone. Should'a been done by now, I would guess.
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.
I beg your pardon ... How many years have you studied the fossil record?
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.
Please document. This sounds interesting. Did this discovery overturn all of paleontology when it happened?
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.
Well, that would be preferential preservation due to the environment. Wouldn't you expect marine invertebrates to be buried by sediment more readily?
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, ...
Actually, we have studied them and found them lacking. The fact that you (all) continue bringing them up shouldn't require us to go back and do the work all over again.
you guys only exist to throw eggs, just admit it.
Actually, I exist to learn about the world around me. I don't expect to have knowledge revealed to me.
But I thank you Caffeine as you have not personally attacked me......YET.
Well, Caffeine hardly knows you ... yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Well, I'd like to suggest to Mike that there's a ton of antecedents that haven't been found in Cambrian rocks.
Get to work, man!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Heh, heh ...
Good point. For a guy who is so hung up on our logical fallacies, he seems awfully prone to making a large number of them himself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
That must have been a blast. He actually is very entertaining.
I suppose that's one way of putting it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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, ...
Please explain. What do you mean by a 'neurotic agreement'?
... I think geomorphology is very important, and I believe geomorphological features are better explained by catastrophism.
Do you think that geomorphology is not studied by geologists? Do you think that geology is not instrumental in geomorphology?
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).
Words, Mike. Please show that you understand the words and are not just regurgitating words here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
You say this as though you are some authority on geology. Am I to assume you have a phd in geology?
I suppose in a relative sense, Pressie is a PhD compared to most YECs. Maybe even the ones with official PhDs.
Saying creationists are liars and argue, "nonsense".
Once again, a logical fallacy is not necessarily fallacious. Taken in the context of all of the available data, YEC explanations ARE nonsensical. (You will notice that I refer to YEC posts rather than YEC persons.)
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)
While it may be nauseous, this is not an argumentum ad nauseum. It's shorthand for, 'yeah we've heard it all before and it's still wrong.'
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*.
But what if it's true?
It's a yawn-fest. You're proving that you are just prejudiced and have a chip on your shoulder pertaining to creationists.
Actually, we are just exasperated at the tedium of answering the same old arguments again and again. It's only natural to wonder at the cognitive abilities of the YEC participant.
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.
The only thing I think they should do is read our posts and understand that some kind of rebuttal would be useful.
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.
Actually, it's more basic than that. We are simply weary of hearing the same old arguments warmed over some hellfire, with no acknowledgement of our refuting posts. Actually, I'm a very forgiving guy.
I apologise for believing I am not random pond scum, ...
Ah, well ... A point we agree upon, but what unearthly version of evolution is that?
I apologise for not wanting to treat others like they are random pond scum.
Then why do you completely disregard our posts? Not very civil, wouldn't you say?
Now what should I do? Sacrifice a bull to Darwin?
I think it's pretty clear: you should address our actual points and not attack what your version of evolution seems to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
So when we talk about missing portions of the Cambrian era, we mean that at THIS geologic column we have a specific Cambrian layer that is missing from THAT geologic column over there even though both columns have matching layers above and below the missing one.
Sometimes, I use the analogy of the geological time scale being a tape recording and geological events such as deposition, mountain building and fossil communities being the actual recording. The tape continues indefinitely, but when there is erosion it's like the tape has been erased. I'm not sure that YECs understand this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
The difference being that we know erosion occurs. In fact, we live on an unconformity that is presently removing huge parts of the geological record.
(yes, I am aware of erosional-arguments, the problem is sometimes there is no empirical evidence ...
Actually, there is plenty of evidence for erosion in the geological record. Geologists are trained in such a way as to recognize erosional surfaces and the products of erosion.
... 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.
Except for the fact that it does occur in many places. And the very fact that we can see it (on land) confirms that erosion is happening as we speak. It would seem to me that the neurosis is manifest by those who live in denial of these facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
YEC's always lie about everything related to science.
I am open to the possibility that most YECs are simply ignorant and dogmatic at the same time. In a way, it is impossible for them to lie because they actually believe the stuff they preach. I have always believed that intent is an important property of a lie. Honestly, if you put them on a lie detector, it wouldn't register. I see this phenomena in children and some disabled people. In a weird way, I feel sorry for them. Now, there are militant YECs who are definitely to be despised. Many of them know better, but see this as a meal ticket. I don't think they are dumb enough to hang around here for very long and we have had a few examples on this and other boards where the 'big guns' were requested to join in, but didn't last very long. They know. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
The question is WHY don't they subscribe to the stuff the "Big Boys" are putting out?
This is a good question. I think there is a combination of reasons. First, I'm not sure that all of them are aware of the professional creationist sources. They only hear what their friends say in their small circles, possibly second-hand stuff from the professionals, all garbled in translation. For certain, they don't understand it. But mainly, I've always thought that the foot soldiers of YEC are forced to make stuff up because the big guns of YEC don't give them any support. The leaders are actually too smart to spend much time in forums like this, because they know that they will be outclassed by the educated participants. So, people like Faith and Mike end up floundering with no guidance. They have no armor. Or, they can go to forums like Fred Williams' and nod in agreement with each other. And since it appears to be so acceptable in YECland to just make things up ... well, what do you expect?
I mean, these are the folks doing the "science" right?
Looking high and low for years now and it seems true that there is nothing new under the YEC sun. The professional YECs have failed their believers.
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.
Obviously, someone contributes to the coffers of creationist groups. But I think you are right, the crew (let's say the ones that are more militant) that we have on boards such at this seem to be self-selected for absolute stubbornness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024