Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
90 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 89 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,624 Year: 1,372/23,288 Month: 1,372/1,851 Week: 12/484 Day: 12/93 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3953
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1531 of 1591 (869522)
12-31-2019 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1528 by Faith
12-31-2019 2:27 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological pastYou really

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1528 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 2:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1532 of 1591 (869526)
12-31-2019 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1520 by PaulK
12-31-2019 5:36 AM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
PaulK writes:

In the face of those facts any honest person would have to admit that the mainstream stream view was by far the better explanation.

Commenting on the understatement, geology is a better explanation than Genesis in the way that childbirth is a better explanation than the stork for where babies come from.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1520 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2019 5:36 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1533 by jar, posted 12-31-2019 7:03 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32031
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1533 of 1591 (869527)
12-31-2019 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1532 by Percy
12-31-2019 5:34 PM


But when there is REAL evidence and even Witnesses...
Yeah but I took my daughter to the Cabbage Patch in Cleveland, Georgia and she saw her baby get born from a cabbage. And that was not even the New Babyland General Hospital but the REAL Cabbage Patch.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1532 by Percy, posted 12-31-2019 5:34 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4667
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1534 of 1591 (869531)
01-01-2020 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1520 by PaulK
12-31-2019 5:36 AM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
Paul K writes:

Since the mainstream view accounts for the evidence very well, while you discount large amounts of evidence (because the Flood can’t explain it!) and don’t even have a good explanation for the remainder.

In the face of those facts any honest person would have to admit that the mainstream stream view was by far the better explanation.

But it's only devoted evolutionists that think this. You only study one side of the coin. With historical cases you have an induction of evidence that, "fits", you build it up, sort of like in a court case. There is however an induction of evidence that, "fits" with the flood and creation very well, it's just that it would seem probable you either aren't aware of it or through denial, will simply never accept the evidence fits well. Most evolutionists online are very dogmatic and will make statements such as, "ALL the evidence favours mainstream and NONE creation".

That's part of the problem, laypeople like you are making claims about honest people like you just did here, that basically the mainstream scientists wouldn't make. A lot of you are die-hard atheists, and that is your real motive, so there is usually a disparity between what scientists say we must accept and what atheists INSIST we must accept.

The, "any honest person" would agree with your side, as the mainstream view being the best explanation, is basically a clumsy non-sequitur. I am an honest person, but this honest person does not believe you have ever studied the arguments of GAPS, paraconformities, inselburgs, flume experiments PROVING you can get laminated strata by progradation, very quickly, both laterally and superposed, standing arches, water gaps, planation, polystrate fossils, the best ways to bury large loads and save them from rotting, (bloat and float disarticulation experiments), intertonguing rock, fossils breaking many varves, and the problems with the phylogenetic tree which are a mismatch of the record, meaning the tree would predict diversity then disparity, but what we see is the opposite.

The, "any honest" person is just a way of creating a false dichotomy where all the righteous, honest people are evolutionists and all the evil, dishonest mikes are basically liars.

Not in real life PK, but certainly between your ears. When you get beyond that small space perhaps then you might break out of eternal stubbornness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1520 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2019 5:36 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1535 by PaulK, posted 01-01-2020 8:05 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 1538 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-02-2020 1:27 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 1535 of 1591 (869533)
01-01-2020 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1534 by mike the wiz
01-01-2020 7:47 AM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
quote:
But it's only devoted evolutionists that think this

Really? You think that someone who claims to be able to explain the evidence but ignores most of it and doesn’t have a good explanation for the rest should be believed?

quote:
You only study one side of the coin.

And how would you know that?

quote:
With historical cases you have an induction of evidence that, "fits", you build it up, sort of like in a court case. There is however an induction of evidence that, "fits" with the flood and creation very well, it's just that it would seem probable you either aren't aware of it or through denial, will simply never accept the evidence fits well. Most evolutionists online are very dogmatic and will make statements such as, "ALL the evidence favours mainstream and NONE creation"

Faith hasn’t been able to find any. And do remember that we are talking about Faith’s views not creationism in general (which is bad but not as bad as Faith’s nonsense).

quote:
That's part of the problem, laypeople like you are making claims about honest people like you just did here, that basically the mainstream scientists wouldn't make. A lot of you are die-hard atheists, and that is your real motive, so there is usually a disparity between what scientists say we must accept and what atheists INSIST we must accept.

I guess you must share Faith’s redefinition of “honesty”. I am not aware that anyone tells obvious falsehoods - falsehoods that should be obvious even to them - is usually considered honest.

Let us also note that you have a habit of making fallacious and misleading arguments,

quote:
The, "any honest person" would agree with your side, as the mainstream view being the best explanation, is basically a clumsy non-sequitur. I am an honest person, but this honest person does not believe you have ever studied the arguments of GAPS, paraconformities, inselburgs, flume experiments PROVING you can get laminated strata by progradation, very quickly, both laterally and superposed, standing arches, water gaps, planation, polystrate fossils, the best ways to bury large loads and save them from rotting, (bloat and float disarticulation experiments), intertonguing rock, fossils breaking many varves, and the problems with the phylogenetic tree which are a mismatch of the record, meaning the tree would predict diversity then disparity, but what we see is the opposite.

That deposition can happen rapidly in some cases is not in dispute. That all of it happened rapidly is very much lacking in evidence. Also, flumes are not a natural condition.

The rest is a collection of assertions. Some of them extremely dubious. But the evidence still stands - you don’t for instance have any answer to the order of the fossil record.

quote:
The, "any honest" person is just a way of creating a false dichotomy where all the righteous, honest people are evolutionists and all the evil, dishonest mikes are basically liars.

You have, in fact given good cause to question your honesty. For instance when you falsely accused me of presenting Faith as a representative of creationism - instead of the fringe loon she is. And here you are doing just that - for real


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1534 by mike the wiz, posted 01-01-2020 7:47 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1536 by mike the wiz, posted 01-01-2020 8:28 AM PaulK has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4667
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1536 of 1591 (869534)
01-01-2020 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1535 by PaulK
01-01-2020 8:05 AM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
Paul K writes:

Really? You think that someone who claims to be able to explain the evidence but ignores most of it and doesn’t have a good explanation for the rest should be believed?

Do you refer to Faith? If you note I only quoted the parts that it seemed to me were generally aimed at creationists. I would not put forward Faith as the best arguer of creation science, no offence to her of course but if she is the dominant member here rather than the chess master Jonathan Sarfati, a creationist PHD chemist, then obviously your views of creationists are going to be rather limited.

I am not supporting all of her claims, nor was I referring to anything to do with her.

Paul K writes:

And how would you know that?

"You're not stupid" Paul. You have knowledge, so don't think I am picking on you. But there are SIGNS when a person is being dogmatic about things or saying certain things, that they are portraying a matter more simplistically than it really exists as. You aren't as objective as you think. Again I am not attacking you personally and I am not saying I am perfect either, but with the issue of historical case, let's face it our own dependence on data focuses very much on what we do know rather than what we don't know.

With historical cases, I myself would never say, "creation wins, there is nothing for eons". That would be biased HORSE*HIT. I would only be saying that because I am creationist. My own studies have shown me there is no silver bullet when it comes to historical cases, either way, it's simply a situation where we rely on an inductive tally of consistent evidence and we have to either explain away the conflicting evidence or ignore it. That happens on both sides. It is a complex issue, I just don't think it's as simply as, "any honest person". I am honestly evaluating the facts using critical thinking, again the point of my boast is only to confirm I am able to do that evaluation, and if it is just down to data, and argumentation, it isn't a case of a clear win for either side because it is a very, very complex area the dating thing.

For example as an objective statement I MUST to remain, "honest", admit that light speed leads to a best explanation the universe is very old. Now I am not an old earther but what I am saying is YES, I can admit when an argument is strong for the evolutionist side. But that intellectual honesty isn't easy to achieve, you have to know a LOT about the rules of logic and critical evaluation.

Paul K writes:

Faith hasn’t been able to find any. And do remember that we are talking about Faith’s views not creationism in general (which is bad but not as bad as Faith’s nonsense).

"Bad" is just an epithet, of course you will say that, you're biased. In my book I tried to be more objective, for example I think Darwin's idea of evolution AS AN IDEA, is very clever, and in terms of explanative power, a common ancestor answering for say, a homological feature in say a horse's bats and humans limb, would be a very elegant way and has explanative power. I could just say, "it's bad", but the truth is, it isn't bad, it was a very clever offering. Do I think it ultimately wrong? Yes, but as an attempt it had intellectual merit.

Paul K writes:

Let us also note that you have a habit of making fallacious and misleading arguments,

No Paul I don't because when it comes to logical reasoning and critical thinking, as you can see I am still the top scorer, so if you have superior abilities please show them by beating that score. I also have a LOT of tests of say 90% average. Generally speaking I do not commit fallacies because clever people largely can avoid them. I don't claim perfection but generally there is certainly no use for the question begging term, "habit" you have barely asserted here, which is ironically, a bare assertion fallacy you seem to be unaware you have committed by expecting the readers to simply accept what you say about me.

Zoobiedoku (as you can see the game has been played 56 thousand times, if 35 thousand evolutionists played, I beat them all) Ho, ho!

Paul K writes:

That deposition can happen rapidly in some cases is not in dispute. That all of it happened rapidly is very much lacking in evidence. Also, flumes are not a natural condition.

The rest is a collection of assertions. Some of them extremely dubious. But the evidence still stands - you don’t for instance have any answer to the order of the fossil record.

I have an answer for the order of the fossil record. There was always going to be one. Darwin invented his tree predicated on the order that exists but the order existed to begin with meaning to say, "break evolution by breaking the order" would be to make a logical error, because the order was always factual, meaning if the order is nothing to do with evolution then the order will still exist.

I wonder if you can see the problem I shall try and explain it, AGAIN, since you don't remember my argument.

Let us pretend Darwin found not the Cambrian common marine critters but rather mammals in the bottom most layers. Do you seriously believe he would then still have argued that mammals evolved from reptiles? So then inherently when you match a process like evolution, over time, to a record, then describe that record as what evolution occurred, the matter becomes something called, "tautologous", which means it will always be true that evolution will match the record because Darwin was always going to say it happened in whatever pattern he found.

So unless there is some science which can disprove the notion that there could be some other cause of the sorting, why must I dismiss the flood based on what biased laypeople evolutionists say?

As for "flumes are not a natural condition", neither is an experiment that replicates the water cycle, with it's beaker and bunsen burner, and other instruments. Come on Paul, we both know that if you caused abiogenesis in the lab I could not respond thus; "but that wasn't a natural condition".

As for Faith, I can only give my opinion but don't want to disparage her as a poster. I would say 60% of what she says I disagree with as being the best argument for creation. That has no baring on her personally because that would likely be the same for any lay person creationist, so I wasn't trying to get into defending Faith, I was mostly concerned with the, "any honest person" claim, and the claim everything on creationist side is, "bad".

This just isn't so. Those are just WORDS, Paul.

I wrote this explanation in 2014 as you can see the date there, so I am not just trying to wriggle out of it. I also shown you this link a while after and know you read it. Understandably, process of time has made you forget in all likelihood;

The Fossil Order

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1535 by PaulK, posted 01-01-2020 8:05 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1537 by PaulK, posted 01-01-2020 8:57 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 1537 of 1591 (869536)
01-01-2020 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1536 by mike the wiz
01-01-2020 8:28 AM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
quote:
Do you refer to Faith? If you note I only quoted the parts that it seemed to me were generally aimed at creationists.

None of it was generally aimed at creationists.

quote:
You're not stupid" Paul. You have knowledge, so don't think I am picking on you. But there are SIGNS when a person is being dogmatic about things or saying certain things, that they are portraying a matter more simplistically than it really exists as. You aren't as objective as you think. Again I am not attacking you personally and I am not saying I am perfect either, but with the issue of historical case, let's face it our own dependence on data focuses very much on what we do know rather than what we don't know.

You mean signs like noting that Faith discounts most of the evidence we’ve been discussing ?

And no, I have quite often read creationist articles.

quote:
With historical cases, I myself would never say, "creation wins, there is nothing for eons". That would be biased HORSE*HIT. I would only be saying that because I am creationist. My own studies have shown me there is no silver bullet when it comes to historical cases, either way, it's simply a situation where we rely on an inductive tally of consistent evidence and we have to either explain away the conflicting evidence or ignore it. That happens on both sides. It is a complex issue, I just don't think it's as simply as, "any honest person". I am honestly evaluating the facts using critical thinking, again the point of my boast is only to confirm I am able to do that evaluation, and if it is just down to data, and argumentation, it isn't a case of a clear win for either side because it is a very, very complex area the dating thing.

But scientists are well aware of that. The mere fact that Flood geology is only believed by Young Earth Creationists - all of whom seem to be YECs before encountering it - is itself a red flag.

quote:
For example as an objective statement I MUST to remain, "honest", admit that light speed leads to a best explanation the universe is very old. Now I am not an old earther but what I am saying is YES, I can admit when an argument is strong for the evolutionist side. But that intellectual honesty isn't easy to achieve, you have to know a LOT about the rules of logic and critical evaluation.

I can say, without doubt that I understand those rules far better than you. You have a lot of learning to do,

quote:
"Bad" is just an epithet, of course you will say that, you're biased. In my book I tried to be more objective, for example I think Darwin's idea of evolution AS AN IDEA, is very clever, and in terms of explanative power, a common ancestor answering for say, a homological feature in say a horse's bats and humans limb, would be a very elegant way and has explanative power. I could just say, "it's bad", but the truth is, it isn't bad, it was a very clever offering. Do I think it ultimately wrong? Yes, but as an attempt it had intellectual merit.

That doesn’t change the fact that creationist arguments often are very bad. Especially Young a Earth argument. The information argument, for instance, which relies on omitting any clear measure of information such that we cannot tell if a mutation increases information or not. Or I remember an especially awful probability argument from Lee Spetner who should have known better.

quote:
No Paul I don't because when it comes to logical reasoning and critical thinking, as you can see I am still the top scorer, so if you have superior abilities please show them by beating that score. I also have a LOT of tests of say 90% average.

And that there is a fallacious argument right there. Scoring highly in a test doesn’t make your posts any better.

quote:
I have an answer for the order of the fossil record. There was always going to be one. Darwin invented his tree predicated on the order that exists but the order existed to begin with meaning to say, "break evolution by breaking the order" would be to make a logical error, because the order was always factual, meaning if the order is nothing to do with evolution then the order will still exist.

You’re not even addressing the problem. All I am asking for is an explanation of how the observed order could be produced by the Flood. Evolution doesn’t enter into that,

And you are wrong to say that there has to be an order. If the Earth was old and species were fixed there would be no special order to the fossil record at all.

quote:
Let us pretend Darwin found not the Cambrian common marine critters but rather mammals in the bottom most layers. Do you seriously believe he would then still have argued that mammals evolved from reptiles? So then inherently when you match a process like evolution, over time, to a record, then describe that record as what evolution occurred, the matter becomes something called, "tautologous", which means it will always be true that evolution will match the record because Darwin was always going to say it happened in whatever pattern he found

And here you also make an error. The relationship between mammals and reptiles has as much to do with taxonomy as th3 order of the fossil record. An extreme disagreement between the two would have been a serious problem for Darwin.

quote:
So unless there is some science which can disprove the notion that there could be some other cause of the sorting, why must I dismiss the flood based on what biased laypeople evolutionists say?

You could look at the order and ask how the Flood could do it. We have and nobody has been able to find an explanation, nor - to the best of my knowledge has any creationist. That is the problem. Too bad your answer ignores it -but since your answer is fallacious anyway it’s no great loss.

quote:
As for "flumes are not a natural condition", neither is an experiment that replicates the water cycle, with it's beaker and bunsen burner, and other instruments. Come on Paul, we both know that if you caused abiogenesis in the lab I could not respond thus; "but that wasn't a natural condition".

I think that you would if it were claimed that the experiment proved that abiogenesis happened in nature - rather than merely demonstrating the possibility of it occurring. Which would be the relevant parallel.

quote:
As for Faith, I can only give my opinion but don't want to disparage her as a poster. I would say 60% of what she says I disagree with as being the best argument for creation. That has no baring on her personally because that would likely be the same for any lay person creationist, so I wasn't trying to get into defending Faith, I was mostly concerned with the, "any honest person" claim, and the claim everything on creationist side is, "bad"..

The point, of course, is that any honest person would recognise that Faith had come nowhere near showing that the Flood was even a viable explanation, let alone a “better” explanation than that offered by science.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1536 by mike the wiz, posted 01-01-2020 8:28 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3797
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 1538 of 1591 (869553)
01-02-2020 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1534 by mike the wiz
01-01-2020 7:47 AM


Land sediments sandwiched between marine sediments
Paul K writes:

Since the mainstream view accounts for the evidence very well, while you discount large amounts of evidence (because the Flood can’t explain it!) and don’t even have a good explanation for the remainder.

In the face of those facts any honest person would have to admit that the mainstream stream view was by far the better explanation.

But it's only devoted evolutionists that think this. You only study one side of the coin. With historical cases you have an induction of evidence that, "fits", you build it up, sort of like in a court case. There is however an induction of evidence that, "fits" with the flood and creation very well, it's just that it would seem probable you either aren't aware of it or through denial, will simply never accept the evidence fits well. Most evolutionists online are very dogmatic and will make statements such as, "ALL the evidence favours mainstream and NONE creation".

So, how would your "flood geology" explain a statigraphy of a thick layer of blatently land deposited sediment being found in between two thick layers of marine deposited sediments? The flood, the flood went away, the flood came back?

Mainstream geology has no problems with multiple floods (repeated sea transgressions onto the continents). But you have only one flood.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1534 by mike the wiz, posted 01-01-2020 7:47 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1539 by Faith, posted 01-02-2020 1:53 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1539 of 1591 (869554)
01-02-2020 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1538 by Minnemooseus
01-02-2020 1:27 AM


Re: Land sediments sandwiched between marine sediments
Seems to me such a sandwich would show the fossil order idea to be a crock. Either it progresses from marine to land or it doesn't progress at all. The Flood has no problem with any motley collection of sediments and fossils, it's you guys who insist there is an order that we have to explain. But we don't. Really there isn't any such thing anyway as marine or land sediments, maybe fossils but not sediments. Or if they originated in one or the other location why would it matter since the water would carry them willynilly wherever it willed anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1538 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-02-2020 1:27 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1540 by PaulK, posted 01-02-2020 2:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1540 of 1591 (869555)
01-02-2020 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1539 by Faith
01-02-2020 1:53 AM


Re: Land sediments sandwiched between marine sediments
quote:
Seems to me such a sandwich would show the fossil order idea to be a crock.

Obviously it wouldn’t. The order in the fossil record is not an order of environments.

quote:
Either it progresses from marine to land or it doesn't progress at all.

That’s silly. The fact that some life moved on to land doesn’t mean that all marine life vanished. Marine life went on living and dying and being fossilised.

quote:
The Flood has no problem with any motley collection of sediments and fossils, it's you guys who insist there is an order that we have to explain. But we don't.

You do if you wish to claim that you have a viable explanation of the evidence. The order is a known empirical fact, first observed in the very early days of geology.

quote:
Really there isn't any such thing anyway as marine or land sediments, maybe fossils but not sediments.

And that is empirically false, too. We can observe the sediments deposited on land and those deposited by the sea.

quote:
Or if they originated in one or the other location why would it matter since the water would carry them willynilly wherever it willed anyway.

Except for the ones which weren’t deposited by water at all. Desert sand and loess come to mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1539 by Faith, posted 01-02-2020 1:53 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1542 by Percy, posted 01-02-2020 11:30 AM PaulK has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17835
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1541 of 1591 (869564)
01-02-2020 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1522 by Faith
12-31-2019 1:17 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
Faith writes:

I did not mention the people on the ark....


You certainly did. You mentioned "witnesses".

Faith writes:

... and a one time event is pretty much the definition of nonrepeatability.


As I have said more than once, it is not the event that must be repeatable; it's the observations. We do not repeat a murder to solve the mystery. But different people at different times must be able to repeat the observations of the evidence.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1522 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 1:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1545 by Faith, posted 01-02-2020 1:46 PM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1542 of 1591 (869568)
01-02-2020 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1540 by PaulK
01-02-2020 2:21 AM


Re: Land sediments sandwiched between marine sediments
PaulK writes:

quote:
Seems to me such a sandwich would show the fossil order idea to be a crock.

Obviously it wouldn’t. The order in the fossil record is not an order of environments.

Either this is wrong or you're saying something subtle that I'm not getting.

What I thought Faith was saying was that a stratigraphic sequence of marine/terrestrial/marine disproves sea transgression/regressions. The rest of her post seemed to be an attempt to support this contention using free association arguments untethered to reality.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1540 by PaulK, posted 01-02-2020 2:21 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1543 by PaulK, posted 01-02-2020 12:19 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1544 by dwise1, posted 01-02-2020 1:01 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15837
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1543 of 1591 (869569)
01-02-2020 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1542 by Percy
01-02-2020 11:30 AM


Re: Land sediments sandwiched between marine sediments
quote:
Either this is wrong or you're saying something subtle that I'm not getting.

No, I am saying that the geological record is not ordered by the depositional environments. You won’t find a fixed order of marine to terrestrial sediments or types of sediment.

quote:
What I thought Faith was saying was that a stratigraphic sequence of marine/terrestrial/marine disproves sea transgression/regressions.

Oh, no. That isn’t what she said. Every time we talk about the observed order in the fossil record she starts assuming we’re talking about an evolutionary order and with her ideas about progress thrown into it.

So, if we get marine sediments followed by terrestrial sediments followed by marine sediments Faith assumes we’d see fossils of marine organisms followed by fossils of terrestrial organisms followed by fossils of marine organisms. And that goes against her idea of the order of the fossil record. Which is just silly, and she ought to know better.

It’s just another example of her refusal to understand with the usual consequence. All she’s doing is making herself look worse - but that’s her problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1542 by Percy, posted 01-02-2020 11:30 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3953
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1544 of 1591 (869571)
01-02-2020 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1542 by Percy
01-02-2020 11:30 AM


Re: Land sediments sandwiched between marine sediments
What I thought Faith was saying was that a stratigraphic sequence of marine/terrestrial/marine disproves sea transgression/regressions.

What I thought was that she was appealing to pretty much the same simplistic and false idea of "The Ladder of Life" that leads to that old canard, "Why are there still monkeys?"* Or the other way around, appealing to "Why are there still monkeys?" with a touch of "Ladder of Life".

My reading of Faith's "conclusion" was that she was thinking of the "evolutionist" interpretation of fossil order as supporting the "Ladder of Life" (as opposed to the Darwinian ever-branching bush of descent), in this case the historical sequence of life having started in the seas and then moving onto the land. But then she forgot the fatal flaw of "why are there still monkeys?", which is the mistaken idea that the evolution of a new species requires the extinction of the parent species, which would logically lead to the impossible and ludicrous idea that the establishment of life on the land would have emptied the seas of all life (or the colonization of the New World would have left the Old World devoid of human habitation).

Of course, we, unlike Faith, can understand Minnemooseus' point in Message 1538:

Minnemooseus writes:

So, how would your "flood geology" explain a statigraphy of a thick layer of blatently land deposited sediment being found in between two thick layers of marine deposited sediments? The flood, the flood went away, the flood came back?

Faith's fuller response (Message 1539) was:

Faith writes:

Seems to me such a sandwich would show the fossil order idea to be a crock. Either it progresses from marine to land or it doesn't progress at all.

That tells me that she somehow thinks the fossil order would dictate that once land fossils appear then you should never again see marine fossils -- why her bag-of-cats mind would have her think that, nobody can possibly know.

Rather in reality, when you have a marine environment then you would get marine fossils and when you have a land environment (including rivers and lakes, the existence of which Faith vehemently denies) then you would get land fossils. Not only does Faith deny these very obvious facts, but she has been denying persistently and vehemently for years the very obvious fact that something that had been buried (eg, a plant or animal) had existed at the same time as that burial event. How her bag-of-cats mind could possibly deny such obvious facts, we normals cannot understand.

What Faith appears to be unable (or unwilling) to understand is that the order of the fossil record is the overall pattern that we see world-wide. And that an individual location can have its own history of both marine and terrestrial depositation, even overlapping each other, in which marine layers would have marine fossils and terrestrial layers would have land fossils.


FOOTNOTE *: "Well, if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?"

Almost every time I would even mention that extremely bad creationist argument to a creationist, that creationist would very bitterly accuse me of having made it up in order to create a strawman argument. Far from it.

In 2002, Answers in Genesis published an article which listed really bad or flagrantly false creationist claims that AiG pleaded its readers to stop using; eg, men having one rib fewer than women (because of how God created Eve from Adam's rib), missing solar neutrinos, Darwin's deathbed conversion. One of those claims was "Why are there still monkeys?". That shows that that claim did actually exist and that creationists were actually using it or else AiG would not have included it in their list.

In addition, since I started studying "creation science" around 1981 I have personally observed that claim being used in the wild at least three times. The first time was on a radio show on which the guests were Dr. Duane Gish of the ICR and Fred Edwords of the American Humanist Association. One of the call-ins was a woman whose primary question was "so why are there still monkeys?". It was Gish who tried to explain to her that that idea was wrong and why.

 
BTW, AiG received some negative feedback for that "Please Don't Use" article, especially from Kent Hovind (the list included a number of the claims that he routinely used). I saved Dr. Sarfati's reply and have reposted most of it on my quotes page. It turns out that Dr. Sarfati supports my own position, that it only does harm when creationists use false claims.

BTW,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1542 by Percy, posted 01-02-2020 11:30 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1546 by Faith, posted 01-02-2020 1:48 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34460
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1545 of 1591 (869586)
01-02-2020 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1541 by ringo
01-02-2020 10:43 AM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
If the event isn't repeatable then you have no science and that is the problem with the one-time events of Prehistory. Hisotrical events on the other hand often have witneses which may be written records or even monuments in some cases. I was merely tryihng to list the criteria I think allow for scientific knowledge. Repeatability is one, the famous one of laboratory sciences where you can do experiments over and over to test them in various ways. Witness evidence is another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1541 by ringo, posted 01-02-2020 10:43 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1547 by Coragyps, posted 01-02-2020 1:57 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1549 by JonF, posted 01-02-2020 2:17 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1560 by ringo, posted 01-03-2020 10:58 AM Faith 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