Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

Thanks... I had bookmarked a MP site a few days back thinking the same thing. Maybe a bit of 'Ann Elk' here too... thanks for the link."An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition""No it isn't!"Almost makes me long for the first room... abuse.ABB

Oh, only birds and some dinosaurs ahve this particular wrist joint.

If you want to find out which message is being replied to all you have to do is click on the link at the bottom of the post.And thus pparticular point is that you are trying to argue that anceint birds AREN'T at all like modern life by saying that they would gather on hight ground with the dinosaurs (but apparently not on the even higher ground where the mammals supposedly went - wonder why ?)

quote:

---

I've come to the conclusion that the lower layers were simply those that were buried earliest, the marine creatures, and that started the idea that the ability to put off dying in the flood was probably the main explanation for position in the strata.

---

Except when they don't. Your idea has the fundamental problem that marine layers - with marine fossils can and do occur above terrestrial layers - we've already discussed an example. And contrary to your idea of "high tdies" somehow digging up the remains of sea creatures killed at the start of the flood we also see an order in marine deposits - which at present you have no explanation for.

quote:

---

I gave a variety of possible scenarios to explain ability to survive for lengths of time and it does get tiresome when the same old silly straw man is repeated. OF course you are right but the same possibilities also occurred to me, and that's what led me to my next thought about the basic falseness of the timeline idea. Also this started with ONE example of ONE dinosaur bed which I answered in terms of the facts given for that one bed.

---

Let me point out some things here - for a start the primary point here is the order in the fossil record. Secondly as you admit my response was correct and therefore not a "silly old strawman". Thirdly it was rather silly of you to claim that strong evidence against your ideas proves you right. The order in the fossil record is strogn evidence for the geological timeline - as shown by the fact that you have to resort to ad hoc and implausibe scenarios to attempt to explain it.I'm sorry that you feel the need to decide that if the evidence is against you it can't exist but you must understand that arguing like that is not going to convince anyone but those with a desperate need to be convinced.

Another link http://web1.shastacollege.edu/...Az/Paleozoic/Pz_histAz.html about the historical geology of the Grand Canyon area with maps showing waxing and waning of the ocean. Some fossil info at the end where it mentions the tracks in the Coconino sandstone.

Another link http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_10.htm that discusses faunal succession and its support of evolution.Asample paragraph:"This is the principle of faunal succession. It does not rely on untestable evolutionary assumptions. Faunal succession was first demonstrated by Smith in England, and by Cuvier and Brogniart in France, in the late 1700s and earliest 1800s (Dott & Prothero, 1994 p. 23-25). Evolution was not assumed; in fact, Cuvier believed that all life was created early, and d’Orbigny believed that different faunas were repeatedly created and wiped out by God (Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 25, 2 6). Such observations preceded Darwin’s Origin of Species by more than 50 years."And a bit of another... "Faunal succession directly contradicts the predictions of creation science. All taxa, including higher taxa from genera to phyla, do not appear simultaneously in the fossil record."ABB

quote:

---

And contrary to your idea of "high tdies" somehow digging up the remains of sea creatures killed at the start of the flood we also see an order in marine deposits - which at present you have no explanation for

---

I never said anything had to be "dug up" I picture it being carried in the water along with all kinds of flotsam and jetsam of the flood and deposited with a tide. Enormous tides are to be expected from such a Flood I would think, tides like tsunamis that reach great distances onto the land and dump all kinds of stuff thereon.The order in the fossil record is still under question in my mind as of this thread. Remember I was just taking it for granted before. Then it dawned on me that the many appearances of the column are in fragments etc. Apparently the greater area around the Grand Canyon contains about the most complete column to be found. Except there is no dinosaur layer in the canyon where it should be. And man, the great pictures and diagrams I've been finding sure do look like one humungous water event is the only thing that can explain that stuff. But it's gorgeous. Does make me wonder what this earth looked like before.I've been trying to find information on it. But where else are these columns to be found? How do they compare to the formations of the Southwest? All the googling on the subject only turns up creationist sites because only they are interested in the questions that interest me. Such as: They have all the answers I have, but to convince anyone here I'd need evolutionists saying the same things. Such things as that the geological column is not complete anywhere, that it's a mental construct only. And as I posted above from that site I just found, the greater Grand Canyon area up into Utah IS considered to be the most complete version of it but that also isn't complete. The column IS a fiction invented on faith in the Old Earth and timescale formulations. I meant what you were picturing was right, I agree, but it wasn't a fair representation of what I was getting at. You mean where I say the evidence is better explained by the Flood? What a strange thing to say. That proves it ISn't strong evidence for your side. It's superficial evidence for the geological timeline, with little objective evidence for it, as I keep saying, in reality, and piece by piece the Flood explains it better. And you aren't offering any evidence here I notice, just the usual assertion that it's true and I'm wrong.

Your statement about The Grand Canyon being the most complete geologic column is incorrect; as you note there are large layers missing.However, there are several areas where near constant deposition has been occuring for millions of years(in those subsiding basins,you may recall) such that the column is represented with no gaps for that area. Someone else posted this a while back http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/ with a sample here:"First, as I have noted before, the concept quite prevalent among some Christians that the geologic column does not exist is quite wrong. Morris and Parker (1987, p. 163) write:
Now, the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence.
They are wrong. You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
(Sources:
Robertson Group, 1989;
Quoted in the same article are the admissions of some noted creationists and the limitations of some of their theories.ABB

quote:

---

Another link http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_10.htm that discusses faunal succession and its support of evolution.Asample paragraph:
"This is the principle of faunal succession. It does not rely on untestable evolutionary assumptions. Faunal succession was first demonstrated by Smith in England, and by Cuvier and Brogniart in France, in the late 1700s and earliest 1800s (Dott & Prothero, 1994 p. 23-25). Evolution was not assumed; in fact, Cuvier believed that all life was created early, and d’Orbigny believed that different faunas were repeatedly created and wiped out by God (Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 25, 2 6). Such observations preceded Darwin’s Origin of Species by more than 50 years."

---

OK, I'm saving that link because I can't read through the whole thing at the moment, but what I did read of it, as well as what you've quoted above give no PROOF of ANYTHING, just ASSERTIONS. The article gives lists of quotes of creationist ideas -- really intelligent explanations and hypotheses -- answered ONLY with flat denial, just denial, just an assertion that they are wrong, not supported by evidence, no evidence given, no proof, just the flat statement.How do you "demonstrate" faunal succession pray tell? You can point to the order in some piece of the column somewhere or other for some animals, but that's about it. You can't "demonstrate" The Past. And Cuvier is merely said to have "believed" that "all life was created early" and D'Orbigny is also merely said to have "believed" -- something really weird in his case, and these mere beliefs and suppositions and extrapolations are called "OBSERVATIONS"???? They are NOT observations. Let's use the language correctly at least. They are hypotheses at best, and the evidence from which they are hypothesizing isn't even given.

quote:

---

And a bit of another... "Faunal succession directly contradicts the predictions of creation science. All taxa, including higher taxa from genera to phyla, do not appear simultaneously in the fossil record."

---

Another bald assertion. As stated there is nothing controversial about it, but it ignores the main question. They may not appear simultaneously anywhere (but "anywhere" is a big word and every inch of the entire earth is not exactly open to investigation), but they also don't always appear where they are expected to appear, and they appear with layers missing and so on. The column is complete nowhere. It is broken and scattered.Well this thread has passed 300, supposedly died a few posts ago.Moose was right, it shouldn't have been allowed to get off topic. All this should have had its own thread.

Again I can't study that at the moment, but you still have to show that all the fragments of the column in other locations support the ordering in any supposedly complete column.EDIT: OK I missed your list of other supposedly complete columns. Tired, trying to get off the internet and get some sleep. How would I verify that they are in fact all the same? I'll check tomorrow. Good night.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-26-2005 04:55 AM

While you neve explicitly said that stuff had to be "dug up" you nevertheless explained fossils that SHOULD have been deeply buried by your "high tide"As for the creationist sites I believe that Glen Morton has documented a number of sites where there are strata from every geological period.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htmAnd can you explain what was unfair in my presentation of your attempts to explain away the ordering ? Tke issue is that there is a consistent pattern which contradicts your ideas you appeal to unusual circumstances affecting every single known example As I said such explanations are acceptable when dealing with a relatively small number of anomalies but when every case is assumed to be a statistical outlier ? That is highly improbable, as I said.ANd I see that you are now moving from a psoiton where evidence you don't know of doesn;t exist to where evidence you can't adequately deal with doesn;'t exist either. It really isn't going to convince any unbiased person that your beliefs are true.

Kuhn theorizes how scientific discovery works within the context of the world of scientists. Its more like historical/socio-psychological analysis of how scientists treat science. What he does not do is provide the context of how one goes about relating logic to evidence, and comparing theories within the same framework.If you read Kuhn and understood him, then you should very well know what I've been trying to discuss.In any case I am now double baffled, this would support keeping kids in public schools and teaching them evolution. 1+1=2 and physical laws say there is a conservation of energy/matter... yet Jesus turned a few loaves and fishes into a feast for multitudes. Chemistry clearly shows that substances do not change instantly from one chemical arrangement en masse to another... yet Jesus turned water into wine. Indeed, chemistry and physics show that men cannot walk on water... yet Jesus did.That's the point of miracles and a metaphysics that allows for them. Science cannot contradict them. Science can only tell you what is the best model given the physical evidence we have available to us and the mechanics we currently have an understanding of.Yes, the ToE has a different explanation than a literal translation of the Biblical account. If one believes in miracles, then there should be no problem in accepting the ToE as an understanding of science, but that it simply lacks the evidence necessary to include the miracle that occured, or the miracle which removed (or confounded the evidence).I remember a couple of creo friends that had no problem with evo. They learned it just the same and yet proudly announced "the devil put the bones there". I would like to discuss how you can create an educational system which allows Xians to rewrite scientific methodology and theories, teaching it for an accredited degree, because it violates Xian personal beliefs, yet not have this happen for anyone else who's beliefs are violated.If I open a thread, will you show up? I want to get this straight... you believe the Periodic Table is more real than the Geo Timeline? That our conception of electrons and photons are more real than the proposed Geo Timeline? This shows an incredible lack of understanding in what went into the creation of some or all of them. Just because the others don't seemingly conflict with Biblical literalism, does not mean they were constructed in some different way.You know there were other ways of making periodic tables? And heck I have two different kinds of molecular model kits depending on how you want to view electrons within atoms.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Succession of Globorotalia over several million years here http://pls.atu.edu/.../people/baker/geol2024/fossils_htm.htmDown to the brass tacks now I hope. Perhaps some of the others will chime in with other examples of why we don't see poodles in the PreCambrian.ABB

A link with the Geo Column with the types of life associated to layers/periods(near the end).
Page Not Found - College of Mines and Earth Sciences - The University of UtahThis may be a reference if you wish to delve into faunal succession in more detail. Note the entry of flowering plants near the end of the age of Reptiles.ABB

quote:

---

As I said, "just as the reverse is not right." Those who regard the ToE as a false theory should not have it imposed on their children either. Even if you think they are wrong, communities ought to have the right to pursue and teach their own beliefs (as long as none of it threatens public safety of course). The whole point of American freedoms was the recognition that there are different views and one mustn't be allowed to silence or intimidate another.

---

So, if there exists a group of people who object to the Holocaust being taught in history class, because they do not believe it happened, should the schools not "impose" the teaching about the Holocaust on children in public schools?

quote:

---

Of course, I agree. But we're trying to avoid appealing to the Creator here, and simply argue from what is actually observable, which really is enough all by itself to blast their Geo Timeline nonsense to bits, although they don't appear to be able to think outside the box long enough to get the point.

---

So, what is the publication date for your journal ariticle (your Grande Thesis) that will completely overturn the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists over the last 200 years or so?Surely, you will be collecting your Nobel prize shortly thereafter?Perhaps you could do the world a great service and show how prayer is all one needs to heal disease, not those ridiculous things like "surgery", "drugs", or GOD FORBID, knowledge of genetics and common descent!.Faith, the sheer arrogance of your statement is truly breathtaking....particularly since you seem mostly ignorant of geology.