|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying Creation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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'. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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) ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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 conditionsexists 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 therewould be NO sequence within the fossil record." --Assuming that the fossil record has anything to do with the creation account. "Animals of varyingtypes 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 observationif 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, orfalsified has little bearing on whether there is a God who actually created the world." --Whew, were not lost yet! "I am not concerned with underminingyour 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? ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I'll skip to the bits that we disagree on
--Um..Ok. "The fossil record, regardless of how old the differentlayers 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 (inevolutionary 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 offsince 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 sequenceof 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 independentwitnesses 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 basedupon 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 lifewas 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 argumenthere 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 occurwhen 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 fossilrecord. 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 sothis 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 outthat 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'tconfuse 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. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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 adegree." --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 interpretationof 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 argueagainst 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 fitthe 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 invesitgationinto 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 thecreation 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. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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 ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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, andthat existence sequence is inferred by evolutionists (like myself)." --Creationists too. "As I understand it (please correct if wrong) your assertion is thatthe 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 fromthe 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 hisfamily, 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 theArk 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 fossilisationwould 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 correctconditions are prevalent, remains will be fossilised. ANY animal could have become fossilised." --Yup. "Under these conditions we should expect to see NO SEQUENCE inthe 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 formfrom 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 ALWAYSand 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 topof 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: --Note these arent all the factors, just the obvious ones to get discussion started. "Explain why the animals considered by evolutionists to have emergedmore 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: "Mechanism for burrial in a flood?"--Yes, see above quote (from myself). "Why should burrial during a flood be anything other thanrandom ?" --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 littledebating 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 fossilrecord." --ok. "This is exactly predicted by an evolutionary explanation for lifeon earth." --Who's to say thats the only explination. "It is exactly contrary to the ACCOUNT of creation, mixed up ina 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. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"No replies for a bit .... does that mean I win
--Far from it. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
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=1quote: "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 theburrials 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 anAllosaurus 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 "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 berelated 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-lionswould 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 happenedthough." --I don't believe I did, what did I say? "If, on the other hand, you have an environment with a variety oflife, 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 thekind 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 survivelonger than weaker, less intelligent animals." --Right. "Many dinosaurs are thought to have been able to swim ... duck-billedvarieties 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 increasingcomplexity 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 sayingthat 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 anattempt 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 sequencewhich 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. -------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"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#environmentquote: --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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024