|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying Creation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
HI TC!!! you're missing all the fun back in the other forum! im dying to hear some of your responses. if you don't give any, i suppose ill be forced to copy n paste the convos into this forum!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: You started it quote: Creationists infer an existence sequence ?
quote: OK ...
quote: I take that as an agreement quote: Not quite sure what you mean here. Are you agreeing that theburrials would be random ? quote: 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. 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. quote: 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. 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. quote: Is there then a single, fossilised proto-lion which you know of ?The flood model would require it as evidence. quote: Another phase ... where's that come from ?
quote: So you agree with my comment that burrial sequence would berelated to individual ability to survive the conditions. None of the animals would be able to completely survive the flood,but some individuals could last longer than others. That's NOT species, that's individual animals. Some proto-lionswould be stronger than others and so survive longer, and be buried later. Why (in this scenario) are there so few infant fossils?Not eggs, mind you, but cubs/pups/kits whatever. quote: Yes ... if you place them in the water in a particular sequence,then there is a sequence. You already said that's not what happened though. 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 ? 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. In the flood scenario, strong intelligent animals would survivelonger than weaker, less intelligent animals. 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). 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. This does not fit with what can be expected from a flood scenario.
quote: I'm not saying it's the only explanation that fits, I'm sayingthat evolution fits the fossil record data. quote: This IS NOT a conclusion. 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. So far I cannot find a convincing explanation for that sequencewhich is explainable by the flood scenario. Hopefully I have made clear my objections to the sequencing suggestions you have made.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]
"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? [/B][/QUOTE] Wow. 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.
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/8361/1998/kirsty/trilo.html#introhttp://24.114.7.13/kevin/Trilobites.html This last link it to a very detailed Trilobite morphology:
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/geology/8361/1998/kirsty/morph.html#General ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"HI TC!!! you're missing all the fun back in the other forum! im dying to hear some of your responses. if you don't give any, i suppose ill be forced to copy n paste the convos into this forum! "
--Actually if you copy and paste them here, it would be much more helpful, I don't think I'll be posting in that forum for a couple of reasons. One being it's extreamly small font, and with my monitor's set resolution, individual letters are no more than 1.5-2.0 mm. in diameter, a quite strenuous reading. Also because I have found that it is very hard with my participation rate in discussions to keep up to pace with more than one forum. Even with the Factor of myself trying to create a web site, 2 of them for that matter. Percipients EvCforum gains my favor in both of these details. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-27-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
i refresh this page, but i can't see the new messages...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: So the burrials SHOULD be random ... not ordered.
quote: Glad we agree on that ... Evolution IS refutable given approriateevidence. It may NOT have to be THAT extreme, but not going into that in this thread (I think it's more for a 'What would convince you?' thread). quote: That's the nature of theories ... if new evidence emerges some or allof a theory has to be re-arranged. If the evidence is completely contrary to the theory the theoryWILL be discarded. Creationists do exactly the same. Come up with some evidence thatappears to refute a claim, and there's a bit more 'research', and a get out appears. quote: Yes, and there will be layers above and below where those remainsare completely absent. (It is the 'below' part that is the most important ... since scientists have been wrong about extinctions in the past). quote: So you agree that the fossil record shows an existence sequencefrom older forms to newer, and yet still hold the Biblical account of creation and of a great flood to be literally correct ? quote: Evolution does not REQUIRE it as evidence, without this there isplenty of other evidence for evolution (with which you tend to disagree/interpret different, but none the less ... ). For the flood model as you have stated it:: Any animal touching bottom will be fossilised.Animals on the Ark were those BEFORE speciation. Would require these proto-whatevers to support the model.
quote: So is the Bible literally correct or not, in this matter ? If the bible has omitted important information, then it is notcomplete, and so we cannot claim what is there to be anything other than an abridged/edited highlights version. That being the case how can we ascribe literal truth to what IS included ? quote: In general there are marked differences in vertebrate skeletalstructure between infants and adults. These alone can be used to identify infant remains. In the flood model, with anything touching sea bed being fossilisedwe should see many fossils of infants, since these would have been too weak to survive for more than a very short time. We do not see that many infant remains. Sorry ... the baby's crying I'll carry on with this reply later
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: And what about throwing in an elephant and a juvenileapatosaurus ? Why would one (elephants can swim, sauropods are thought to havebeen able to swim) hit bottom before the other ? And not JUST one, all apatosaurs hit the bottom before ANYelephants ... when survival is based (you agreed) on INDIVUDUAL survivability. OR in case we have a problem with supposing that a sauropod couldswim, why would ALL elasmosaurs (water dwellers as it is) die before ANY elephants (or mastodons or whatever YOU would expect to be the proto-elephant of Noah's time) ? BTW you said ::
quote: quote: Fair enough ... what characteristics and factors could contributeto the CONSISTENT sequence found in the fossil record. Evolutionary theory claims that remains found in lower levelswere deposited long before those in higher strata. That fits the data. If the lower remains lived and died before the births of those in higher layers (regardless of the actual time period) we would expect to see the progression which can be OBSERVED in the fossil record. quote: Interpratation of data ... true. Suppose you hadn't read anything about creationist claims abouthow the fossil record originated. What about the fossil record would lead you to suppose that allthe remains had co-existed, and that some cataclism had burried them in a sequence such that some forms appeared to precede others in time AND in form ? The hypothesis that the fossil record indicated an order of existencefrom long ago to more recent times was made based upon the data BEFORE evolutionary theory existed. It was later used as additional evidence to support evolutionary concepts put forward in the origin of species. quote: Again, that's fair enough. We do not have sufficient knowledgeof dinosaur metabolisms to know how often they required food. The point I was trying to make is that there is NO logical reasonwhy ALL of one kind of animal could have died and been burried before ANY of another kind, when all co-existed, and survivability is individual.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RetroCrono Inactive Member |
quote: I guess you didn't realise what I was disagreeing on. The Theory of Evolution is the study and belief that life came about over time. How would proving that dissaprove a creator? Maybe immediate creation like you believe, but that is all. No matter what science finds out (unless they work out how energy comes from a non existant source, which would go against a well demonstrated law), than God can always sit on top of it all. What you have to realise is working out how the wheels go around will never prove a God didn't put those wheels in motion in the first place. RC
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
may i ask a very simple question?
why aren't humans or any other modern animal for that matter found fossilized? no lions no humans no rats no sloths no koalas no kangaroos no primates (modern) no cat-like species no human tools (a hammer) no children no cattle no crops no horses all we see are primitive animals in a neat geological order. the more primitive, the lower in the strata. and why do we find fossils of the following (keep in mind that the following would be fossilized in a downpour that covered the entire planet in water.)? fossilized dinosaur nestsant nests termite nests bird nests (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming) fragile wasp nests complex rodent burrows animal dung left in its original position of deposition as it hardened on dry, solid ground trackways of land animals raindrop imprints fossilized mudcracks fragile things preserved as fossils, such as bird feathers (Confuciusornis) ferns (adjacent to coal beds) insects (Oligocene lake beds near Florrisant, CO), All these fragile features are found deep in the geological record. A catastrophic flood would have destroyed them. I would especially like you to consider how raindrop imprints and mudcracks could have become fossilized in a sudden, massive flood.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
quote: Science isn't around to explain the meaning of life. that's up to theology, philosophy, and religion. but you assume that god is infinite, no? if he is infinite, why can't the universe (or cosmos) be infinite as well? if it is, it would not require a creator... but again- this is not science, this is speculation. science doesn't touch on the final origins of the universe. It simply proposes theories regarding the physical nature of the universe. it can tell you that time is relative, it can explain to you why this is possible, but in the end, it can't tell you why time is relative in the first place.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Sorry about the split in this reply ... babies!!
quote: Nothing in the above goes very far to explain the consistencywithin the fossil record ... see my previous posts!! quote: Are you referring to evolution being able to exaplain anything ? If you are, isn't that an indication that it might be right.The consistency with which evidence can be interpreted should be quite compelling. quote: Give me some sound, logical and/or physically credible explanationof the sequence in the fossil record other than that given by evolutionists and you might shake my foundations quote: Indeed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
moving this to the top
yecs- see my questions above...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5898 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Excellent point, Retro. Science has no interest in disproving the existence of God or gods. In fact, science has no capability of doing so. The question has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory, or any of the other realms upon which science - based on examination of natural phenomena - has jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024