Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying Creation
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 141 (3907)
02-09-2002 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peter
02-08-2002 8:28 AM


"In different parts of the world, the sequences of fossils by
stratum are equivalent.
This alone falsifies the ACCOUNT of creation in Genesis."
--How in the world does this falsify it? I don't see the relevance of your accusation of this being a valid falsification of the Genesis Creation account, for one, the Genesis 'creation' account cannot be attributed to being validated by the hierarchy of fossil succession in its burrial record. This attributes to a falsification of the Noacian Flood, but not creation. The initial creaiton, is simply based on faith, because it is based on the question of Origins, creationists ofcourse allready have their answer for for Origins. One of the few questions we answer with 'Goddidit'.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peter, posted 02-08-2002 8:28 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 5:10 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 141 (3908)
02-09-2002 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Quetzal
02-01-2002 9:26 AM


"As to potential falsifications to evolution: I can think of lots and lots!!!! Let me know if you want some (this is a thread about falsifications for creationism, after all)"
--I would like a good thought-out list of falsifications for reference, think of as many as you can, we don't have to discuss them here, I would just like them on a side-note (sorry for straying off topic, but have been meaning to ask)
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2002 9:26 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 141 (4140)
02-11-2002 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peter
02-11-2002 5:10 AM


"The proposal put forward in Genesis for the creation is that
all animal life was created 'as is' during the six day creation
period."
--No doubt.
"Fossils are created when animals die, and particular conditions
exists such that their remains are petrified (simplification)."
--Actually, they are permineralized, but othewize you are basically correct.
"If ALL animals were created at the same time it follows that there
would be NO sequence within the fossil record."
--Assuming that the fossil record has anything to do with the creation account.
"Animals of varying
types would have died as their lifespan dictated (even if that were
much longer when they were first created than now)."
--No doubt, that doesn't mean that they would have been burried to reach permineralization.
"Sequences observable in the fossil record show, for example,
no mammals in layers below or equivalent to , say, dinosaurs."
--Actually they are found in the region where dinosaurs are exhibited in the fossil record, though they become dominant thereafter.
"Sequence in the fossil record is contrary to the expected observation
if the creation account were fact."
--But the creation account has nothing to do with the Fossil Record?
"Therefore the creation ACCOUNT is inaccurate."
--See above.
"Whether or not the ACCOUNT of creation is accurate, inaccurate, or
falsified has little bearing on whether there is a God who
actually created the world."
--Whew, were not lost yet!
"I am not concerned with undermining
your faith, but if the creation is a matter of faith to you and
that's that ... why are you debating here ?"
--thats a very good question, indeed, mabye you should ask yourself that question sometime?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 5:10 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by LudvanB, posted 02-11-2002 3:05 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 141 (4150)
02-11-2002 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by LudvanB
02-11-2002 3:05 PM


"LUD:...though quite innacurate."
--Oh, then what else could it be other than 'as is'?
"LUD: we all agree here but i know it cant last..."
--Yeah, too bad isn't it
"LUD:But it does in a way...lets keep reading."
--In what way was that, ok lets keep reading then.
"LUD:actually,premineralisation depends on the environemental conditions that prevailed where the animal as i understand it and burrial in certain substance is often necessary to achieve this. If i'm wrong about this,someone correct me."
--Your correct, though I don't see what is the contrary towards my statement, I was making aware that things that die, don't always get permineralized (fossilized), 99.999% of the time, it requires burrial.
"LUD:But the point is that despite some rare exceptions,the fossil record is quite consistant..."
--That depends on what your view of consistancy is, obviously in its own logical way, there is no way it could not be consistant, but if you are refering to how people determine where you will find a creature, it requires minor and major refinement constantly.
"nothing,then small critters from the cambian explosion,dinos,and THEN birds and mammals. In that context,the weight of evidence does not support the creation accounts..."
--Again, it has nothing to do with the account of creation, I was hoping you would give me a reason why it does, as I would hope even the most anti of anti-creationists should realize this as basic (for young earth arguments). And again Dinosaurs are found along with mammals (smaller mammals that supposedly evolved with the dinosaurs) int he Fossil record.
"LUD: yes it does if the fossil record tends to demonstrate that certain types of animals appeared and were gone LONG BEFORE other type of animals came about."
--which, might I add, is a major assumption, and is based on interperetation, not fact.
"The creation account is quite specific on this...BIRDS THAN ANIMALS,all of em in 2 days."
--Yup, and its also specific in its own little way on the flood, 'Everything ourside of the ark perished'.
"LUD:you too,TC..."
--Thanx, lets run through it again (no YEC theory has anything to do with the creation account within the record of fossils).
"LUD: We never were anywhere near being lost...Evolutionists dont claim that there is no God...they just explain that he probably did not work the way teh Bible describes."
--Takes alot more faith than is needed to believe that the bible isn't accurate. Like I explained above, so this statment isn't too relevant if you regard it as a sortof conclusion from the previous.
"LUD:If i may be permited to answer this as well,i come here because i get many things from the debates."
--Likewize, thats a good thing.
"The absolute worst thing that can happen to science is to become complacent."
--I don't see that happening.
"Sometimes,debating the "other side" so to speak allows certain faults in your logic to appear that you may have missed otherwise and it gives you the opportunity to re-evaluate your conclusions to see what you may have missed."
--Thats the main reason I am here, and forgive me Peter if I was a little sarcastic, just make sure you know the basics of the theory your arguing with, unless of course you were arguing with someone else, but don't argue with the bible, argue with the theory.
"True,this may mean that you might change your mind completely about the issue you're debating if the fault discovered in your logic was a fatal one but most of the time,it just re-inforces your earlier position because you come back after adressing the problems with an even greater understanding of the hypothesis you are defending in a debate."
--Amen
"Does that answer your question...at least as far as i'm concerned?"
--As far as I am concerned, yes.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by LudvanB, posted 02-11-2002 3:05 PM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Peter, posted 02-12-2002 5:45 AM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 34 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 10:21 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 141 (4871)
02-17-2002 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Peter
02-12-2002 5:45 AM


"I'll skip to the bits that we disagree on
"
--Um..Ok.
"The fossil record, regardless of how old the different
layers in which fossils are found may be, indicates a sequence
of demise within the animals that live and have ever lived."
--It shows that the animal under it was burried sometime before the one on top.
"There are layers which contain nothing but fish and (in
evolutionary terminology(sorry about that ) lesser lifeforms,
and higher lifeforms are NEVER found in layers equivalent or lower
than these."
--Yes, but there also fish found above these layers, (obviously) indicating that the other life form, by whatever mechenism, was not able to be burried till then.
"(I realise that the mammal thing was a little off
since early mammals emerged while dinos were still about)."
--Thats allright, everyone makes little mistakes here and there, such as 'moon rocks were dated for carbon14 radioisotopes', hehe, its a quick chuckle, but you know how it goes.
"The point I was making was that the fossil record shows a sequence
of existence."
--Sequence of 'burrial' to be precise.
"It is consistent."
--As I explained in my last post, it depends on what you qualify for existance. For instance, if Evolution theory were to say that birds were not found untill the Jurrassic, and one was found in Triassic, it means that your label on what shows consistancy is flawed, but the true sequence of burrial is still the same.
"It has been observed by independent
witnesses world-wide (and in the early fossil hunting error with
no mass-communications media they came to similar conculsions
about what this sequence meant)."
--Yes, and it acclaimed minor and major refinement over the years to cooperate with what is found.
"To test an hypothesis or assertion, we make a prediction based
upon that assertion and see if we can find evidence that refutes
it. This is (edited highlights of) scientific method."
--Ok.
"The creation ACCOUNT (and I stress ACCOUNT) states that all life
was created with a very short period (i.e 6 days of creation, animals
made toward the end of that)."
--Sure was.
"Animals die according to their lifespans (no argument
here I think), then ANY of the animals in creation could have
died at the same time as each other, or 'lower' forms after 'higher'."
--No, the fossil record indicates order of burrial, nothing to do with their life-span or when it was created, or when it was alive.
"The conditions for fossilisation are particular. If burrial is required in 99.9999% of cases, then fossilisation can only occur
when an creature has been burried close to its time of death (otherwise carrion eaters or such would have taken it away)."
--Dending on your mechenism or reason for burrial. If you have a massive flood, your chances of getting burried are probably more along the lines of 5% rather than .00009%. This again, has nothing to do with the time of death, but the time of burrial, a 20 year old person could get burried and be perfectly healthy and therefor be fossilized.
"This LEADS directly to a prediction of NO sequence in the fossil
record. A lion could have died and been fossilised just as easily
as an early fish or T.Rex or ... whatever, and at the same time or earlier than any other animal because they all co-existed."
--Not if you have a worldwide flood, fish are allready down there, a lion isn't stupid enough to head straight for the bottom.
"This is contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation in the Bible, and so
this account MUST be inaccurate or (more likely) non-literal."
--Or more likely, we need to take a step back and see what we are arguing.
"I don't usually respond to personal comments, but I will point out
that in arguing against Creationism we ARE arguing against the Bible
accounts. There is no theory of creationism, except that the bible
is the literal truth of creation."
--You've seen the hierarchy of classification in Creationism havent you?
"I also AM aware of the context and content of this debate. Don't
confuse recent arrival on the forum with recent arrival to the
debate itself"
--Ok, we do need to look at what we are arguing here though.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Peter, posted 02-12-2002 5:45 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by edge, posted 02-17-2002 10:06 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 141 (4873)
02-17-2002 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Peter
02-12-2002 5:48 AM


"Sorry I missed a bit out here (OOPS ). I meant that the
prediction made by the biblical ACCOUNT is not born out
by the fossil record."
--Great were getting somewhere atleast, that is because the biblical account of creation doesn't have anything to do with the point of burrial, thus the fossil record.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 02-12-2002 5:48 AM Peter has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 141 (4876)
02-17-2002 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Peter
02-12-2002 6:44 AM


"While I am clearly on the same side of the debat, and would agree that
creationsim is NOT science,"
--Atleast we can agree on something
"I contend that it IS falsifiably to a
degree."
--Technically, but if your going to find potential falsification your not going to find it in creationism, its sort of a word defining a conjoined others. So pick at the leg of Creation-science, not creationism, theres nothing to pick at in creationism, Creation science is meaty, if I must use analogy.
"Creationism is, fundamentally, based on the literal interpretation
of the Bible."
--No, faith is, Creationism has a basis under two classifications, faith-bible, and science (creation science).
"It is for this reason that creationists argue
against evolution and other natural explanations for life, the
universie and everything."
--Funny how I've never seen myself resort to it.
"IF a literal interpretation of the Bible can be shown to not fit
the evidence of the real-world the doubt must be cast on the
creationsist contention."
--That sure would rip a leg off, you can't really survive with one leg. So I would invite discussion, I have been unable to find such a problem with scripture, and this seems to be the place to discuss it.
"Then maybe the creationist community will begin a proper invesitgation
into the origins of life ... rather than simply stating that the
Bible says this, so its true."
--Yeah mabye, though it was started a long time ago.
"I have rarely seen arguments from creationists which support the
creation story ... they seem to prefer to attempt to under-mine
belief in a natural explanation."
--Undermining natural explination? Who's resorting to that? As I stated earlier, we need to take a gander at what we are arguing.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Peter, posted 02-12-2002 6:44 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by toff, posted 02-18-2002 9:57 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 141 (4877)
02-17-2002 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 10:21 PM


"if they require burial most of the time, then would humans be able to affect that? for instance a human feels that he should bury the animal as they are also going into exctinction. would that affect anything? would it make a young earth more feasable?"
--If this did not take place, or they missed one, then your going to have to look through pre-cambrian rock strata for it, as the Flood caused all them layers.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 10:21 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 141 (4878)
02-17-2002 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Pete
02-14-2002 4:59 AM


"So you are admitting that the ACCOUNT of creation in the
Bible is NOT accurate, or at least NOT to be taken literally ?"
--See what your arguing, and your evidence supporting your argument. Your missing fundementals.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Pete, posted 02-14-2002 4:59 AM Pete has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 141 (4883)
02-17-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by edge
02-17-2002 10:06 PM


"And by what mechanism do you propose this? Haven't you been beaten up enough on this argument?"
--The mechenism of the Flood. I havent needed to break a sweat in the argument peter proposes against me, simply because he implies that the Creation account should show contrast towards the Fossil record.
"Um, tell us, TC... When we have a flood what do we see floating down the river to the sea, at least once in a while?"
--Your going to see fish...Its all part of the mechenism for burrial in the flood.
"The problem is that you have NO credible diversions from the known fossil sequence. Oh, sure we can move one phylum or class back a Period or so, but no major departures."
--See above.
"For example there are no clams in the early Cambrian. Why not? Were they more intelligent than the trilobites? Or faster?"
--I don't think we know proper anatomy in trilobites to figure this equation, or do we have a good knowledge on what trilobite chracteristics in anatomy are or were?
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by edge, posted 02-17-2002 10:06 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Peter, posted 02-18-2002 8:29 AM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 53 by Peter, posted 02-18-2002 9:19 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 63 by nator, posted 02-27-2002 7:44 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 141 (5560)
02-26-2002 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peter
02-26-2002 8:01 AM


"Well?
Any takers ... just wanted to boost the topic back up
"
--Hey thanx, I guess the thread got lost in the pile so I'm glad you gave it a nudge
, It must have gotten lost while I wasn't able to post here a couple days ago. I'll get to it.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peter, posted 02-26-2002 8:01 AM Peter has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 141 (5568)
02-26-2002 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Peter
02-18-2002 8:29 AM


"Perhaps because you can't see where this is going yet"
--Ohhhh, so were using battle tactics here, nice...
"I will agree, that the fossil record shows a burrial sequence, and
that existence sequence is inferred by evolutionists (like myself)."
--Creationists too.
"As I understand it (please correct if wrong) your assertion is that
the burrial sequence in the fossil record has nothing to do
with the ACCOUNT of creation, only with the Great Flood."
--Never heard of anything else that has any grasp on reality.
"So again lets try to look at what one would expect to see from
the your interpretation of the flood."
--Lets!
"Prior to the flood ALL animals existed in roughly their current form."
--Emphesis on the 'rough'[ness].
"Apart from those animals taken aboard the Ark by Noah and his
family, all (presumably land) animals were killed in the deluge
or resulting global flood (a time span of roughly a year ..."
--Most would have been burried and died within the first couple months.
"flood waters abating by the 10th Month, then Noah opens the
Ark 40 days later to dry earth)."
--Something like that.
"During the time of the flood dead animals would sink to the bottom
(eventually), come to rest, and some would be buried."
--Mabye half would have had to 'sink to the bottom and come to rest', while some would have been immidiatelly burried.
"Some of these would be in conditions whereby fossilisation
would occur."
--Anything that touched sea bottom...their gonna get fossilized unless protected by some force, ie a predator or something of the like.
"Fossilisation is NOT a selective process. So long as the correct
conditions are prevalent, remains will be fossilised. ANY
animal could have become fossilised."
--Yup.
"Under these conditions we should expect to see NO SEQUENCE in
the burrial record, because the waters contained a number
of ALL animals and their death and subsequent burrial would be
related to the individual ability to survive in the water."
--Note: God didn't keep all the animals out of the water and wait till it was flooded to throw everything back onto the earth to be burrial, thereby constituting randomness...
"What we see (and there are NO anomalies to the best of my knowledge)"
--Ofcourse there are no anomalies, Evolution will cooperate with anything found.
"is a sequence of burrial which shows increasing complexity of form
from the oldest burrials to the most recent."
--Basically.
"Fossilised remains are restricted in the orders of animals represented."
--presented for burrial you mean.
"There are NO fossilised lions, say."
--Because there were no lions preceeding the flood. For instance, Tigers and lions are related, along with the possible mountain lion and panther.
"Fossilised ammonites ALWAYS
and ONLY occur in layers lower than dinosaurs despite ammonites
being aquatic and able to survive a flood."
--The flood wasn't all that gentle...And thats because they all died out before another phase of the flood.
"Before debating the specific examples (and they are off the top
of my head) think about what in the flood scenario could have
caused the consistent sequencing that IS SEEN in the fossil
record."
--(thinx hard).
"Explain exactly how this sequence could occur by way of a flood."
--Ok, I'll quote myself from a bit ago:
quote:
There are many factors, intelligence, agility/menuverability(could it climb treas or have the ability to menuver in the midst of chaos well), shape/structure (fur, density (muscle sinks and fat floats I believe from because of density), lungs and air, etc), environment, habitat (did it live on the bottom of the ocean, middle, top of the ocean, live on ground, could it fly, and if it could fly how long can it stay in the air and when it is on the ground what is its relevance to menuverability (pterosaurs are thought to 'waddle' simmilar to the way bats menuver on ground as is shown by pelvis structure), also how can this animal adapt to quick changing environments, ie ice age or rapid climate changes could have caused virtually all non-insulated animals to die quickly and be subject to quick burrial on the next sediment deposits with little rustling around of the bodies. Hydrologic sorting plays a very small part in the reason they are burried the way they are.
--Note these arent all the factors, just the obvious ones to get discussion started.
"Explain why the animals considered by evolutionists to have emerged
more recently are NEVER found in a fossilised state, when other
animals which in biblical terms should have co-existed with them
do."
--Might I quote from yourself:
quote:
Fossilisation is NOT a selective process. So long as the correct
conditions are prevalent, remains will be fossilised.
"Mechanism for burrial in a flood?"
--Yes, see above quote (from myself).
"Why should burrial during a flood be anything other than
random ?"
--Because of the conditions in events during the flood. To put it so the most basic mind could understnd (I'm not implying at all as an insult, just a very basic fundemental understanding), if you throw a clam in the water, and then throw any kind of bird in the water...in any number your not going to have randomness. When you contribute characteristics, intelligence, agility and the like as I have given above, these wide non-random figures will be contributed on a smaller scale than a clam and a bird within other types.
"That's an evasion. I noticed you like to point out these little
debating tactics so I thought I'd join in"
--It is only true, unless you can point out the various characteristics as I have shown above, you cannot fit a trilobite into an equasion as an unknown factor.
"The question is about the consistency of sequence in the fossil
record."
--ok.
"This is exactly predicted by an evolutionary explanation for life
on earth."
--Who's to say thats the only explination.
"It is exactly contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation, mixed up in
a global flood and deposited at random on the flood bed."
--Not the smartest thing to come to conclusions any-time this rapid, it signifies pre-conseived beliefs and ideas, which shouldn't be a factor in the scientific method.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Peter, posted 02-18-2002 8:29 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Peter, posted 02-27-2002 6:50 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 141 (5569)
02-26-2002 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Peter
02-20-2002 7:18 AM


"No replies for a bit .... does that mean I win
??"
--Far from it.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Peter, posted 02-20-2002 7:18 AM Peter has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 141 (5726)
02-27-2002 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Peter
02-27-2002 6:50 AM


I wish, I'm pointing my finger at Joz, and look, I even have supporting evidence!
Joz and his Big Guns and fishing lure - http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=9&t=3&p=1
quote:
Lure them in and then open up with the big guns....
"Creationists infer an existence sequence ?"
--Of course, otherwize I would have no other choice but refer a retreat in shouting 'conspiracy conspiracy!'.
"OK ..."
--Allrighty.
"I take that as an agreement
"
--Sure thing.
"Not quite sure what you mean here. Are you agreeing that the
burrials would be random ?"
--If my story of God holding the animals till one sudden momment at the climax of the Flood, sure there would be emensly more randomness (though there still would be a consistancy to a degree).
"Not so. If a fossilised hominid were found in the jaws of an
Allosaurus evolution could NOT cope with that ... and I doubt
any modification of the theory could."
--Now if this hominid found in the jaws of an Allosaurus were found, there would possibly be some burrial excuses, but then again, something this extream would not hold up well at all of course. There are modifications taking place in evolution theory alot of the time. When different organisms are found in different layers and such. Your not going to find something like your hominid approach or a wallrus in cambrian strata, those are large extremeties. What you will find is possibly few ammounts of one type of animal in lower strata, which Evolution is well adapt to cooperate I have found. Keep in mind that the Geo column isn't a hill's worth of strata. There are thousands of layers, that are marked with eras, periods, etc. by the order of the find of variations in phylogeny and anatomy of organisms.
"By 'no anomalies' I meant that where fossils are found, the same
(broadly speaking) types of fossil are found in the equivalent
layers ... all around the world."
--Thats right, though refer to the above. The Geologic column by distribution of fossils is not blocky, that is things just don't all of a soden appearing in massive quantities in the same marked strata. Its a smooth spectrum, where your going to find one animal, the further you go down, the less densly they will be found.
"No, not presented for burrial. In the flood model ALL animals
(barring the Arkers) were presented for burrial within a one year
period starting with the deluge."
--Hm.. I guess it was just a miss-wording and understanding, I concur.
"I was getting more at the idea that only certain, 'older'
forms are represented in the fossil record. That's older
in a evolutionary interpretation, of course."
--And Flood interperetation might I add.
"Is there then a single, fossilised proto-lion which you know of ?"
--Frankely, I can't find much at all on lion evolution, let alone the cats. Can you find anything?
"The flood model would require it as evidence."
--So would evolution
, unless ofcourse they would accept Jumps from dogs to cats in a generation. Lions do exist, and according to evolution theory, everything has come from one common ancestor, thus the lion.
"Another phase ... where's that come from ?"
--Phases in the Flood, such as the point of the ice age, killing off dinosaurs, a phase in which sediment settled and were transported by oceanic currents during the flood at different places on the earth. In all simplicity these factors produce a phase-like progression.
"So you agree with my comment that burrial sequence would be
related to individual ability to survive the conditions."
--You could say that.
"None of the animals would be able to completely survive the flood,
but some individuals could last longer than others."
--Thats right, thats why we don't see every animal look as if they all keeled over and died like the dinosaurs, we se progression, which is none-the-less evidence for the Flood, likewize Evolution by this factor alone.
"That's NOT species, that's individual animals. Some proto-lions
would be stronger than others and so survive longer, and be buried
later."
--No doubt.
"Why (in this scenario) are there so few infant fossils?
Not eggs, mind you, but cubs/pups/kits whatever."
--Wouldn't happen to have any informational reference on what we do find concerning infant fossils, also on how they attribute it as being an infant anatomically in the fossil?
"Yes ... if you place them in the water in a particular sequence,
then there is a sequence."
--You don't have to put them in sequencially, you could throw a clam in the water, and throw the bird in the water at the same time, your going to get the clam on the bottom, and with massive quantities, many other factors would be brought in, that is, seeing that clams would be overlapping with birds after a while, for instance.
"You already said that's not what happened
though."
--I don't believe I did, what did I say?
"If, on the other hand, you have an environment with a variety of
life, covering the major ecological niches required, and then deluge
it rapidly how does the OBSERVED sequence occur ?"
--I don't fully understand what you mean by 'how does the OBSERVED sequence occur', but I believe the answer would be to attribute and consider characteristics and any factor that would contribute to its order of deposition.
"It's a difficult one to explain, because you are putting up the
kind of suppositions and scenario reasoning that you discount
when put forward as evolutionary explanations."
--Not really, many attributions of Flood explination not only is evidence of the Flood, but as you see throughout these debates very frequently, your going to consider 'interepretation'.
"In the flood scenario, strong intelligent animals would survive
longer than weaker, less intelligent animals."
--Right.
"Many dinosaurs are thought to have been able to swim ... duck-billed
varieties spring to mind, and even T.Rex might have
been able to, and these animals are big and strong. Sure they
would starve to death eventually, but if they had metabolisms similar
to modern day crocodiles that could take over a year (big if
but there are prescedents for SOME animals to be able to survive
without ANY food for extended periods)."
--I don't think they have the same anatomical structure and functions as crocodiles and alligators, being dinosaurs in contrast. My explination of Dinosaur 'extinction', is placing it at the rise of the ice age, thereby annialating dinosaurs over a period of time. This also would include other's that arent exactly 'dinosaurs' such as pterosaurs.
"The sequence of burrial evident in the fossil record shows increasing
complexity of form. In some layers there are a mixture of animals
which fit ecological niche concepts, some small, some large."
--Right.
"This does not fit with what can be expected from a flood scenario."
--See above.
"I'm not saying it's the only explanation that fits, I'm saying
that evolution fits the fossil record data."
--See above on my response on this specific.
"This IS NOT a conclusion."
--Whew, I'm glad to hear that.
"I am exploring the flood scenario with you at the moment, in an
attempt to see how the Great Flood could have lead to the burrial
sequence evident in the fossil record."
--See above.
"So far I cannot find a convincing explanation for that sequence
which is explainable by the flood scenario."
--I wouldn't expect you to think otherwize, otherwize, you most likely wouldn't be an Evolutionist now would you?
"Hopefully I have made clear my objections to the sequencing suggestions you have made."
--Discussion continues, and yes we are making nice progress, I am enjoying exchangment of examples, objections, and ideas.
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Peter, posted 02-27-2002 6:50 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Peter, posted 02-28-2002 5:52 AM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 69 by Peter, posted 02-28-2002 7:14 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 73 by Peter, posted 02-28-2002 9:12 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 141 (5730)
02-27-2002 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by nator
02-27-2002 7:44 AM


"I am surprised that even you would make such a claim, TC, without at least a prefunctory web search to cover yourself.
We know a LOT about Trilobites because their fossils are so abundant."
--As you would notice, I made the claim with little confidence, 'or do we have a good knowledge on what trilobite chracteristics in anatomy are or were?'.
--I actually have done web searches on trilobites, but what I used to always find is that we don't know too much about them (at least not compaired to the links you provided), I found that in most cases, environmental factors and the like were based on how they are found in the fossil record with the assumption of a uniformitarian deposition. As the link you provided is very nice, I see otherwize.
--I found in the contents that Trilobite Evolution, Enviroment, and the Decline of the Trilobites the most interesting. Trilobite Anatomy I had allready had knowledge of.
--I found some things interesting in the articles:
Environment - http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/8361/1998/kirsty/envir.html#environment
quote:
This trilobite seen to the right (Bumastoides, taken from PaleoPalace.com) did not have the ability to see, however this did not pose a problem as it was constantly submerged in the sea floor sediment.
--And indicating from an earlier read text, Eyes obviously appeared later in Trilobite geologic history, in which they were sometimes 'swimmers', but also well built for retreat to submerge themselves in sediment. This seems to comply with a theoretical Flood.
--Also, just as a thought, it was an interesting note to read that it is evident that they lived at ocean bottom salt water. I'm not sure if it would effect Trilobite fossilization, but as I learned from research in the Field of Marine Geology, ocean bottoms are not only next to freezing, but well oxygenated. Thereby complying an argument of Evolutionary deposition with the factor of decay and anaerobic and aerobic bacterial activity.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 02-27-2002 7:44 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024